From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org (The Hermit Hacker) |
Cc: | Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |
Date: | 1998-02-19 20:13:12 |
Message-ID: | 199802192013.PAA12377@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> passswords had to get in there at *some* point...they are there
> now, now we have to extend the security to the next level. Better to move
> forward 1 step at a time. If we remove the REVOKE altogether, the
> passwords are still there, but there is *0* security instead of 50%
> security...
If we remove the REVOKE, then people will not use passwords by mistake,
thinking they are secure. To use them, they have to issue a REVOKE, and
then they are secure.
What am I missing here?
>
> So, I think we should leave the REVOKE/GRANT in initdb, and work
> at having grant/revoke work on a view (such that a view overrides the
> revoke of all on pg_user) so that it is appliable *after* v6.3 is
> released, and available as (if possible) a patch for just after...
>
> We aren't hurting anything by leaving the REVOKE/GRANT in place,
> but I think we are if we remove it and just leave it wide open...
Again, am I missing something?
--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom I Helbekkmo | 1998-02-19 20:29:50 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |
Previous Message | Brook Milligan | 1998-02-19 20:09:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Platform status |