From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2007-06-23 16:14:23 |
Message-ID: | 467D46DF.5020406@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> One thing I've thought about doing is to remove the default in initdb
>>> completely and *force* the user to choose auth type. Packagers can
>>> then just use that to set ident or whatever. and interactive users
>>> can pick trust if they really need it, but it will be a known choice.
>
>> Since nobody comemnted on this, let me turn it around and ask: Does
>> anybody have any reason *not* to do this?
>
> I'll object if no one else does: this will break existing installation
> habits and processes to no real benefit.
The benefit would be that PostgreSQL would be "secure by default". Which
we are *not* today.
As a comparison, that's been one of the most common complaints against
Windows earlier - stuff is installed and enabled by default, and only if
you already know the system do you know that you should disable it. The
same thing applies here - if you don't already know how PostgreSQL
works, you will by default install a database that's completely without
authentication.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-23 16:41:42 | Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2007-06-23 16:04:38 | Re: tsearch in core patch |