| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, mlortiz <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 20:10:38 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10910141310r76df7939xaaa58c7e3e0e60a4@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Okay, fine, so we're not looking for actual high-grade security,
> we're looking to tick off a checkbox in the minds of not terribly
> well-informed people. Then the plugin mechanism as currently proposed
> will do the job just fine. We do not need to put a whole bunch of
> dubious extra infrastructure in there, and we DEFINITELY do not need
> anything that can be painted as a backwards step security-wise.
Nice exit strategy :-)
I said up front this was a box-ticking exercise for these folks,
however, rather than just tick the box and move on (meh - who cares if
we can store 2009-02-31 - it stores all the valid dates which are the
ones that matter :-p ) I prefer to discuss the issue and do the best
job we can to make it a practical, usable and useful feature - which
is kinda what we usually pride ourselves in doing!
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2009-10-14 20:21:41 | Could regexp_matches be immutable? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-14 20:00:47 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |