| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication |
| Date: | 2015-08-12 21:21:25 |
| Message-ID: | 55CBB8D5.7040501@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/12/2015 01:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Would be great to get comments on the other comments, specifically that
> adding SCRAM's password verifier won't seriously change the security of
> a user's account or password based on an attack vector where the
> contents of pg_authid is compromised. I do agree with the general
> concern that the additional complexity involved in supporting multiple
> password verifiers may result in bugs, and likely security ones, but I
> really expect the larger risk to be from the SCRAM implementation itself
> than how we get data into and back out of our own catalogs.
There's also the concern that the additional complexity will cause
*users* to make security-compromising mistakes, which I think is the
greater risk. Robert has mostly won me over to his point of view on this.
The only case where I can see multiple verifiers per role making a real
difference in migrations is for PGAAS hosting. But the folks from
Heroku and AWS have been notably silent on this; lemme ping them.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-12 22:29:46 | Re: can't coax query planner into using all columns of a gist index |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-08-12 20:54:11 | Re: Test code is worth the space |