| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Date: | 2010-04-15 00:22:30 |
| Message-ID: | u2o603c8f071004141722s9fa2f97dtd9d0bec3a6d0dff7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm thinking there isn't anything much we can do here without using a
> different message wording for a match to a REJECT entry. So it's a
> straight-up tradeoff of possible security information leakage against
> whether a different wording is really helpful to the admin. Both of
> those seem like fairly marginal concerns, really, so I'm having a hard
> time deciding which one ought to win. But given that nobody complained
> before this, is it worth changing?
What's wrong with something like "connection not permitted" or
"connection not authorized"?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-15 00:27:55 | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-15 00:19:45 | Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection |