From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: MD5 authentication needs help |
Date: | 2015-03-05 01:56:25 |
Message-ID: | 54F7B7C9.1090705@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Catching up here ...
On 03/03/2015 06:01 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It feels like MD5 has accumulated enough problems that we need to start
> looking for another way to store and pass passwords. The MD5 problems
> are:
>
> 1) MD5 makes users feel uneasy (though our usage is mostly safe)
>
> 2) The per-session salt sent to the client is only 32-bits, meaning
> that it is possible to reply an observed MD5 hash in ~16k connection
> attempts.
Seems like we could pretty easily increase the size of the salt. Of
course, that just increases the required number of connection attempts,
without really fixing the problem.
> 3) Using the user name for the MD5 storage salt allows the MD5 stored
> hash to be used on a different cluster if the user used the same
> password.
This is a feature as well as a bug. For example, pgBouncer relies on
this aspect of md5 auth.
> 4) Using the user name for the MD5 storage salt causes the renaming of
> a user to break the stored password.
Wierdly, in 17 years of Postgres, I've never encountered this issue.
So, are we more worried about attackers getting a copy of pg_authid, or
sniffing the hash on the wire?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-03-05 02:12:42 | Re: xpath changes in the recent back branches |
Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-03-05 01:27:15 | Re: Join push-down support for foreign tables |