| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, mlortiz <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 15:22:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4AD5ECC3.9000708@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>
>> I would suggest that in addition to the proposed plugin, we add an
>> suset GUC (defaulting to OFF) which rejects any use of WITH ENCRYPTED
>> PASSWORD to ensure that the password complexity can be checked when
>> roles are created or modified.
>>
>
> That's going to stop us from being beat up? A GUC that forcibly
> *weakens* security? I can't see it.
>
> If you're really intent on making that happen, you can have your
> password checker plugin reject crypted passwords; we don't need
> such a questionable rule in core.
>
>
>
And you could have the plugin do that depending on a custom GUC.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-10-14 15:25:49 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-14 15:11:55 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |