Re: pgAdmin4 4.8 Kubuntu issues

Dave,

Thank you for getting back to me.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:01 AM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:29 PM richard coleman <
> rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> All passwords are stored in files of one sort or another. Hopefully
>>> those files are effectively encrypted (assuming of course that you had even
>>> had pgAdmin4 save your passwords to begin with).
>>>
>>
> Sure, in pgAdmin 4 they are (unlike pgAdmin 3 which used PostgreSQL's
> .pgpass files which are plain text). However, the problem is that unless
> the key to encrypt/decrypt those passwords is stored externally (e.g. in
> the users brain, or on a Ubikey or similar), it is also in a file.
> Then it becomes one more thing for users to forget/write down/reuse
> something they already know.
>

>
>
>> Now you may have a VPN, but you also may use the same password for
>>> different things, or other people might use servers that are less hard to
>>> reach.
>>> The same sort of people who use the same password for a number of
>>> things are just going to use that self same password as their *master
>>> password* in pgAdmin4.
>>>
>>
> Sure - however, I'm not ever going to make the default security in pgAdmin
> cater to people who do stupid things like that, or just assume that people
> are already doing stupid things so we shouldn't bother. We will always
> strive to be secure by default, within the bounds of reasonable user
> experience.
> The only thing you *might* be securing are saved passwords, *if* the user
> has saved any. By locking up the *entire* application behind the master
> password, you are just encouraging bad behavior for little to no gain.
>
>> How? pgAdmin has no way of doing that over what is essentially a web
>>> application - and even if it did, allowing a remotely accessible
>>> application (particularly one in which external programs can be configured
>>> and executed by users) to modify it's own configuration is a *really* bad
>>> idea.
>>> Well for a start Edge uses Microsoft's user credentials as a master
>>> password. Any number of applications can access files in a *protected
>>> area *and prompt for a sudo/administrator credential.
>>>
>>
> We could do that too. Assuming users were happy to setup a Kerberos
> infrastructure. Otherwise, we'd need to rely on browser password saving
> which isn't always reliable. The browser intentionally doesn't allow us to
> access locally held credentials as that would be massively insecure.
>
>
>> As for the choice to make pgAdmin4 a python version of phpPgAdmin,
>>> there's been a lot of discussion, most of it not very favorable. I
>>> guess you can chalk this up to one more reason converting pgAdmin from an
>>> application to a *web app* was probably not the best idea.
>>>
>>
> Funny that, whilst there certainly have been people who didn't like the
> change, the *vast* majority of feedback I receive has been positive since
> we ironed out the very early performance issues. Downloads are up massively
> as well, and that's before you count the Docker distro that didn't exist
> with pgAdmin 3, which has been over 5M pulls for quite some time now (I
> don't know the banding of Dockers numbers - I assume it'll go to 10M+ at
> some point).
> Are you really basing *popularity* on a comparison to pgAdmin3, the same
> version that isn't supported, and has one Windows only fork that supports
> postgreSQL 10? If people want a gui to administer postgreSQL 11+, the most
> promoted one is pgAdmin4. If pgAdmin3 supported postgreSQL 11+ most people
> would still be using it.
> Regardless, I'm happy with the change, and I'm happy in the knowledge that
> most users seem to agree. Those that don't are welcome to use the LTS
> version of pgAdmin 3 if they prefer, or other tools. It's a free world (for
> the most part) - people can and should use what they find most productive
> and useful for them. I will carry on working on and providing (for free)
> the tools that interest me.
> Just go back through the emails on this list alone and read the many
> emails of people writing; pgAdmin3 *did* this, why doesn't pgAdmin4?
> They are not even talking about *new* features, just simple feature
> parity. The most recent one that comes to mind is the decision to *hide* the
> explain results behind a "[".
>
>>
>>>> So basically what we have is a *major* UI change (users are literally
>>>> locked out of the application) caused by upgrading a minor version level
>>>> (4.7 to 4.8) with no simple way to revert the behavior all for a dubious
>>>> increase in security.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't wish to be rude, but it's clear you don't fully appreciate the
>>> possible risks here - and I really don't agree that being asked for a
>>> password once when the application starts (not an instance of the UI, but
>>> the server itself, which may support a number of concurrent or intermittent
>>> sessions) is a major UI change. Not that I'd recommend it, but you could
>>> have an extremely short password that you type and then press enter. You
>>> could even ask your browser to save that password if you're less concerned
>>> about security, and then we're talking about *a single mouse click* at the
>>> start of your day, or if you're like me, start of your week.
>>> So you don't deny that 4.8 radically changed it's behavior, without
>>> warning, from 4.7. You then seek to minimize the impact this has on people
>>> by undermining the reason for implementing it in the first place. Let's see
>>> if I am understanding your argument:
>>>
>>
> You're obviously not. I don't deny there is a minor change in workflow,
> which can be trivially disabled (hopefully more since now I've improved the
> docs based on your feedback).
>
Trivially disabled would have been a Preference Option, or a button on the
"Master Password" dialog that lets the user choose "I don't want to use
one".

>
>> - You *must *force end users to start using a master password because
>> they just *don't understand* the security risks of not using one.
>>
>> Nope. I said (intended respectfully), that I didn't believe you
> understood the attack vectors we were discussing. That is absolutely *not*
> the same as saying "users" don't understand in general.
>
I understand the attack vector just fine. You don't think the the default
encryption pgAdmin4 uses to store saved passwords is sufficient should some
malicious actor manage to steal that file. I just don't believe that your
proposed solution provides that much more security (if the malicious actor
can steal the file they can also read the key from memory). If you
*truly* wanted
a secure solution, you would prompt the end user for the master password
for every connection that has a saved password, when it was connecting.
That way you would be minimizing the time the master key was in memory.
The only benefit to the end user would be they could remember *one* master
password instead of *many *(presumably very convoluted) individual
passwords.

>
>> - In order to force the issue, you lock most of the functionality
>> behind the "Master Password" dialog box until they either scour the
>> internet looking for a way to turn off this *feature* or submit and
>> enter a master password.
>>
>> As noted twice now, I've updated the documentation based on your
> feedback.
>
Improved documentation is always appreciated. What you haven't said is
that you'll free up the majority of the functionality that *doesn't* rely
on a "Master Password", from that dialog.

>
>> - When someone complains about this heavy handed behavior your
>> *solution* is to
>> - use an *extremely short *password
>> - have* your browser* store your password
>>
>> Nope again. I specifically said that I didn't recommend doing that, I was
> just pointing out that you could if you chose to.
>
Which defeats the *entire* reason behind this change.

>
>> - point out that you keep pgAdmin4 running for days or weeks at a
>> time, so it's *no big deal *
>>
>> Sure. Even if I were restarting a couple of times a day, I don't believe
> entering a password each time is a major inconvenience. It would be such an
> insanely miniscule amount of typing/clicking compared to everything else I
> do in a day that I couldn't begin to count it.
> I guess that would depend on the number of passwords you have to remember.
> Think about it; I've probably spent an hour or so in total on this
> discussion so far. Even if I took 5 seconds to enter the password (It's
> probably way less than that), that's 720 times I could have entered that
> password.
> Assuming you could remember it. Most people end up reusing the *same* password,
> not because they are stupid, but because they have way too many to remember
> already.
>
>> So, the users *must *use a master password, because *security. *If
>> you find it too burdensome then just use it in a very *insecure* way.
>>
>> How about;
>>
>> Don't spring major changes like this on users during a *minor* update
>>
>>
> A major update for pgAdmin is one that radically changes the entire
> application design or architecture. Minor updates constantly add both small
> and large features.
> I think *most* people would agree that locking users out of the entire
> application on a minor upgrade is a *major* change.
>
>> Make it opt-*in* not opt-*out*
>>
>>
> Not going to happen.
> Why? Is it because, given the choice, most users don't have the *high* security
> need that would make having to remember another password worth the effort.
>
>
>> Make if very *easy* for users to turn this feature on or off
>>
>>
> Docs have been improved, but it's not going to become a preference for
> reasons already discussed (at least not without a complete overhaul of the
> preferences system to allow admins to lock users out of certain changes).
> You wouldn't have to if it was opt-*in*. Administrators would have the
> technical know-how, and the appropriate permissions to modify config files
> manually, *should* they feel the need for that level of security.
>
>> Protect the absolute *minimum* with this feature, not the entire
>> application.
>>
>>
> It could be improved to only prompt for the password the first time a user
> tries to connect to a server with a saved password. I suspect that would
> only make a difference for a very small number of people though, as most
> will either save all or none of their passwords (and the latter group might
> have password saving disabled in the application config anyway).
> It should only prompt for a password when the user is connecting using a
> saved connection that has a saved password. If the user wants to create
> another connection, or use one that doesn't have a saved password, it
> shouldn't matter.
>
>>
>> Hardly a major inconvenience.
>>>
>>> And as for your comment about letting pgAdmin run for days/weeks on
>> your machine, congratulations. When I leave pgAdmin running for more than
>> a couple of hours it becomes unresponsive. Not the UI, that works just
>> fine, but running any queries will take forever (as in they will
>> literally never finish, just grey out the query tool window). For example
>> SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; will never finish, but as soon as I shut
>> down the server (pgAdmin4 not the database server) and restart it will
>> complete instantaneously. So I need to restart pgAdmin4 the *server* many
>> times a day.
>>
>
> Have you logged an issue about that with logs etc? If that is what happens
> for you, then I'd certainly like to resolve that.
>
>
>> I really do hope you'll reconsider this ill-implemented *feature.*
>>
>
> I've already reconsidered it - I always reconsider things when we get user
> feedback. In this case though, I don't agree with your arguments. The extra
> security adds a trivial overhead to user workflow, and those that don't
> want it can disable it completely with a couple of minutes of effort, all
> whilst allowing sysadmins to enforce the use of the feature if they want.
> For most people the *extra security* isn't worth the effort. As
> implemented it provides a modest to non existent increase in security while
> inconveniencing users and encouraging poor security hygiene. The only
> reason most people will grudgingly submit is because there is no easy way
> to turn it off (and no, adding magic strings to user created files in
> random locations is *not* easy, no matter how good the documentation
> is). They'll just reuse a password they already use, or hit <space> or 'a'
> as their password.
> I've said my piece on the topic now - on to other subjects.
>

I hope that they are handled *better* than this *feature.*

>
>
>>
>> rik.
>>
>>> Yes, I think I have been quite restrained in my assessment.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> rik.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:59 AM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 3:22 PM richard coleman <
>>>>> rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where would *that* be? pgAdmin4 the executable and the shared
>>>>>> library is located in /usr/bin/. There are *no* entries in /etc/
>>>>>> for pgAdmin4. There is a pgadmin4.db in /home/u/.pgadmin/ but *no* config
>>>>>> files of any kind there either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea, I don't use Ubuntu or any of it's derivatives and
>>>>> don't know where it installs. Have you tried searching for config.py? That
>>>>> is *not* optional, and must exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's looking like the only way to actually *use *the current
>>>>>> version of pgAdmin4 is to create an undocumented file (the help page says
>>>>>> you can use config.py as a reference, but guess what? That file doesn't
>>>>>> exist either.) in an unknown location, and manually add the magic string;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "*MASTER_PASSWORD_REQUIRED=False"*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think that's a little hyperbolic don't you? It works as intended,
>>>>> with no changes required if you set the password and re-enter it when you
>>>>> restart pgAdmin. You only need to modify anything if you want to change the
>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> And to be clear; if config.py is not present on your system, then
>>>>> there is no way pgAdmin will even start, let alone work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get *why* you added this feature, but I think it was implemented *completely
>>>>>> backwards*. Instead of making *every* end user jump through these
>>>>>> ridiculous hoops just to *continue* to use pgAdmin4 as they had been
>>>>>> up to this point, a better option would be to allow security conscious sys
>>>>>> admins to add the configuration:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "*MASTER_PASSWORD_REQUIRED=True"*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to a non-user writable configuration file. In that way the vast
>>>>>> majority of people running pgAdmin4 can continue to do so and the few that
>>>>>> wanted/needed the added security could do so as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not how security works. Without the master password feature,
>>>>> there are possible attack vectors in which a stored password could be
>>>>> accessed by third parties. We aim for secure by default; if you don't care
>>>>> about the risk, then you can actively choose to run in a less secure way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, now I'm using dBeaver as I *can't* disable the Master Password
>>>>>> dialog box and pgAdmin4 won't let me *do* anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any other thoughts? Anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rik.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:03 AM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:44 PM richard coleman <
>>>>>>> rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, but after an e*xhaustive* search of the several terabytes
>>>>>>>> on my machine, there is *no* config_local.py file. Do you have
>>>>>>>> any idea where it's supposed to be located?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to create it if it doesn't exist, in the same directory as
>>>>>>> pgAdmin's config.py.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rik.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:30 AM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:16 PM richard coleman <
>>>>>>>>> rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cherio,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry to inform you, but there is *no* mention of "config_local.py"
>>>>>>>>>> on that page, nor any indication of where I would find it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.pgadmin.org/docs/pgadmin4/4.x/desktop_deployment.html#configuration
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rik.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:06 PM Cherio <cherio(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Put "MASTER_PASSWORD_REQUIRED = False" line into your
>>>>>>>>>>> "lib/python?.?/site-packages/pgadmin4/config_local.py". This is in the
>>>>>>>>>>> docs:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.pgadmin.org/docs/pgadmin4/dev/master_password.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:41 PM richard coleman <
>>>>>>>>>>> rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To whomever,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Running a newly update pgAdmin 4 version 4.8 on my Kubuntu
>>>>>>>>>>>> box. There are a couple of glaring issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First: It keeps prompting to; "Set Master Password"
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to set another password that I'll just end up
>>>>>>>>>>>> forgetting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Second: When I click the "?" button on that dialog box it takes
>>>>>>>>>>>> me to this page:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "http://127.0.0.1:33681/help/help/master_password.html"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which returns "404 Not Found"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully there is a simple solution to these issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> rik.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Page
>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Page
>>>>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Page
>>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>>>
>>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Page
>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>
>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>