Re: Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Paul Tillotson <pntil(at)shentel(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords
Date: 2005-04-21 04:40:25
Message-ID: 20050421044025.GB58835@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:13:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's worth pointing out also that adding a per-user-entry random salt
> to the password protocol is not some kind of penalty-free magic bullet.
> In particular it implies information leakage: I can tell from the
> password challenge (or lack of one) whether the username I have offered
> is valid. So rather than claiming "this is unconditionally a good thing
> to do", you must actually provide a credible scenario that makes the
> threat you are defending against more dangerous than the sorts of new
> threats we'll be exposed to. So far I haven't seen a very credible
> threat here.

I would think it wouldn't be hard to change the protocol/code so that
the response from providing an invalid user is the same as providing a
valid one.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-04-21 04:43:53 Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-04-21 04:36:57 Re: Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords