From: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)tr(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Password Cracker |
Date: | 2003-01-01 23:02:12 |
Message-ID: | 3E137374.4070305@mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)tr(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>I had no time to search throug the code; but as far as I understood, it
>>*attacks* the database servers with TCP/IP on, right?
>>
>>
>
>No, the program itself simply takes an MD5 hash value and does a
>brute-force search for a password that generates that MD5 string.
>
>The comments at the top suggest sniffing a Postgres session startup
>exchange in order to see the MD5 value that the user presents; which the
>attacker would then give to this program. (Forget it if the session is
>Unix-local rather than TCP, or if it's SSL-encrypted...)
>
>This is certainly a theoretically possible attack against someone who
>has no clue about security, but I don't put any stock in it as a
>practical attack. For starters, if you are talking to your database
>across a network that is open to hostile sniffers, you should definitely
>be using SSL.
>
>
This is absolutely correct, shouldn't this be in the FAQ?
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2003-01-01 23:06:05 | Re: Postgresql, unicode and umlauts |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-01-01 21:47:34 | Re: Bug in pg_get_constraintdef (for deferrable constraints) |