Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:07:21PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> When there is a specific reject rule, why does the server say
> >> FATAL:  no pg_hba.conf entry
> >
> > It's intentional.  We try to expose the minimum amount of knowledge
> > about the contents of pg_hba.conf to potential attackers.
>
> The problem with the message is not that it's uninformative, but that
> it's counterfactual.
>
> ...Robert

I agree (I noticed and was bothered by this today, as a matter of irrelevant
fact). I can support the idea of exposing as little as possible of
pg_hba.conf, but ISTM the "no pg_hba.conf entry" is exposing too much, by that
standard. Just say something like "connection disallowed" and leave it at that
-- either it's disallowed by lack of a rule, or by existence of a "reject"
rule, or by something else entirely. As long as the message isn't clearly
wrong in the "reject" case, as it is now.

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com