Re: Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256
Date: 2017-03-08 13:39:02
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaCPffE4HWVLzgfRiJnyL8z-vfY1wY-k21jX5TTetXJLA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> RFC5802 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5802) regarding the
> implementation of SCRAM, needs to have passwords normalized as per
> RFC4013 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4013) using SASLprep, which is
> actually NFKC. I have previously described what happens in this case
> here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqScgwh6Eu4=c-0L7-cufZrU5rULTSdpMOOWiz1YFvGE6w@mail.gmail.com
> This way, we can be sure that two UTf-8 strings are considered as
> equivalent in a SASL exchange, in our case we care about the password
> string (we should care about the username as well). Without SASLprep,
> our implementation of SCRAM may fail with other third-part tools if
> passwords are not made only of ASCII characters. And that sucks.

Agreed. I am not sure this quite rises to the level of a stop-ship
issue; we could document the restriction. However, that's pretty
ugly; it would be a whole lot better to get this fixed.

I kinda hope Heikki is going to step up to the plate here, because I
think he understands most of it already.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2017-03-08 13:47:58 Re: Hash support for grouping sets
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-08 13:36:27 Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode