| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Date: | 2009-09-28 22:59:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1254178785.32237.3.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > It takes about 32 hours to brute force all passwords from [a-zA-Z0-9]
> > of up to 8 chars in length.
>
> That would be a reason to limit the number of failed connection attempts
> from a single source, then, rather than a reason to change the hash
> function.
>
> Hmmm, that would be a useful, easy (I think) security feature: add a GUC
> for failed_logins_allowed.
Why a GUC, can't we just use ALTER ROLE (or ALTER DATABASE)?
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-28 23:01:57 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-28 22:57:17 | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |