Re: Rejecting weak passwords

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, mlortiz <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Date: 2009-10-14 16:59:24
Message-ID: 15427.1255539564@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So you can use a plugin that does it that way, or if you want you
>> can use a plugin that throws error on a pre-md5'd password.

> My only concern with that idea is having some way for the client to
> know when to not hash the password. Figuring that out from a specific
> error code and then retrying would be inefficient, ugly, and in the
> case of pgAdmin, quite hard to do given the way that SQL is generated
> and then executed.

I don't actually *want* client software deciding on its own hook to not
hash the password. The only reason we have special client-side support
for this command at all is to pre-hash the password, and people are
accustomed to that behavior. If psql or pgAdmin takes a password and
then sends it in the clear without telling me, that's a breach of trust
with potentially serious consequences. I might not trust the DBA, for
example, or I might be less confident of the network infrastructure
than he is.

Fix pgAdmin so that this is a user-controlled switch and let the user
read the plugin's error message and decide if he wants to retry with a
non-encrypted password.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-10-14 17:08:34 Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2009-10-14 16:44:21 Re: Client application name