[Fwd: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c)]

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Just curious, but why don't the copy command fall under the same
> > > > > > grant/revoke restrictions in the first place? It sounds to me like we are
> > > > > > backing off of the problem instead of addressing it...
> > > > >
> > > > > grant/revoke works for copy.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, okay, so when we have it setup so that a view overrides the
> > > > 'grant' of a select, then we're fine?
> > >
> > > Yep, but can we do that in nine days, and be sure it is tested?
> >
> > I don't think so...but I'rather have the obviuos "select * from
> > pg_user" closed off, and the more obscure "copy pg_user to stdout" still
> > there then have both wide open...its a half measure, but its better then
> > no measure...
>
> But it is not secure. Why have passwords then?
>
I think is better have the encrypted passwords and the salt in pg_user.
I don't know if this will be bing a security hole :(

Robson.

> --
> Bruce Momjian
> maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us