| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, mlortiz <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 11:34:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1255952095.19430.30.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> But I don't understand why everyone is
> so worked up about having an *optional* *flag* to force plaintext
> instead of MD5.
It would be pretty bad usability. Users would be faced with the choice:
you can have secure authentication or good passwords, but not both.
(For some values of "secure" and "good".) I think most people would
want both.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-10-19 11:35:11 | Re: Application name patch - v2 |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-10-19 11:33:16 | Re: Application name patch - v2 |