On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> > But yes, I think the enforced cleartext password proxying is at the
> > core of the problem. LDAP also encourages the idea of centralized
> > password-reuse, which is not exactly a great thing for security.
>
> Right- passing around a user's password in the clear (or even through an
> encrypted tunnel) has been strongly discouraged for a very long time,
> for very good reason. LDAP does double-down on that by being a
> centralized password, meaning that someone's entire identity (for all
> the services that share that LDAP system, at least) are compromised if
> any one system in the environment is.
Sure. I don't disagree with anything you've said in that paragraph, but
as someone who's implementing solutions for other people who are
actually deploying, I don't have a lot of control over whether a
customer's IT department wants to use LDAP or not. And I'm not holding
my breath for LDAP servers to start implementing federated identity,
though that would be nice.
> Also, if we do add
> it, I would think we'd have it under the same check as the other
> sensitive pg_stat_activity fields and not be superuser-only.
Just the standard HAS_PGSTAT_PERMISSIONS(), then?
To double-check -- since giving this ability to the pg_read_all_stats
role would expand its scope -- could that be dangerous for anyone?
--Jacob