Re: Authentication tests, and plain 'password' authentication with a SCRAM verifier

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Authentication tests, and plain 'password' authentication with a SCRAM verifier
Date: 2017-03-14 13:43:12
Message-ID: CAB7nPqReLLqUL7XPZ0K7L2T5XbvCnZSC_Ji+TOPqA=YFedKoiw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> While looking at the test, I noticed that the SCRAM patch didn't include
> support for logging in with plain 'password' authentication, when the user
> has a SCRAM verifier stored in pg_authid. That was an oversight. If the
> client gives the server the plain password, it's easy for the server to
> verify that it matches the SCRAM verifier.

Right. I forgot about that..

> Attached patches add the TAP test suite, and implement plain 'password'
> authentication for users with SCRAM verifier. Any comments?

+ /*
+ * The password looked like a SCRAM verifier, but could not be
+ * parsed.
+ */
+ elog(LOG, "invalid SCRAM verifier for user \"%s\"", username);
This would be sent back to the client, no? I think that you should use
*logdetail as well in scram_verify_plain_password.

+# This test cannot run on Windows as Postgres cannot be set up with Unix
+# sockets and needs to go through SSPI.
Yes, true. Having that in its own folder is fine for me.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2017-03-14 13:45:45 Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-03-14 13:05:24 Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE