| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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 <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 20:00:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1649.1255550447@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> This whole discussion seems very strange to me. Surely any
>> organization with rules like this will want them to be system-wide and
>> will have already implemented them in their PAM and LDAP systems
>> (assuming their not using Kerberos or something like that anyways).
> Because like it or not, this 'feature' is one that people *are*
> looking for in early stages of evaluations, and it counts against us
> and can hurt our adoption when we can't tick that box.
Okay, fine, so we're not looking for actual high-grade security,
we're looking to tick off a checkbox in the minds of not terribly
well-informed people. Then the plugin mechanism as currently proposed
will do the job just fine. We do not need to put a whole bunch of
dubious extra infrastructure in there, and we DEFINITELY do not need
anything that can be painted as a backwards step security-wise.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-10-14 20:10:38 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Mark Mielke | 2009-10-14 19:20:37 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |