Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks
Date: 2022-02-27 23:17:44
Message-ID: 9004b18218eae293f1ee888e49d13d8a6b02810d.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 14:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm happy to add support for custom auth methods if they can use
> a protocol that's safer than cleartext-password. But if that's the
> only feasible option, then we're just encouraging people to use
> insecure methods.

FWIW, I'd like to be able to use a token in the password field, and
then authenticate that token. So I didn't intend to send an actual
password in plaintext.

Maybe we should have a new "token" connection parameter so that libpq
can allow sending a token plaintext but refuse to send a password in
plaintext?

> I also have in mind here that there has been discussion of giving
> libpq a feature to refuse, on the client side, to send cleartext
> passwords.

I am generally in favor of that idea, but I'm not sure that will
completely resolve the issue. For instance, should it also refuse MD5?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2022-02-28 00:00:26 Re: Missed condition-variable wakeups on FreeBSD
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-02-27 22:24:48 Re: Missed condition-variable wakeups on FreeBSD