| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: scram and \password |
| Date: | 2017-03-14 20:48:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wDS_RE_DXUDPF3s4EE8ENp3-svmcvmKfmSVa6QSNyV7g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>
> > I was also thinking about that. Basically a primary method and a
> > fallback. If that were the case, a gradual transition could happen, and
> > if we want \password to enforce best practice it would be ok.
>
> Why exactly would anyone want "md5 only"? I should think that "scram
> only" is a sensible pg_hba setting, if the DBA feels that md5 is too
> insecure, but I do not see the point of "md5 only" in 2017. I think
> we should just start interpreting that as "md5 or better".
>
Without md5-only, a user who uses \password to change their password from a
newer client would lock themselves out of connecting again from older
clients. As a conscious decision (either of the DBA or the user) that
would be OK, but to have it happen by default would be unfortunate.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-14 20:50:16 | Re: Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2017-03-14 20:45:45 | Re: Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions |