Re: Rejecting weak passwords

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Page
Тема Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Дата
Msg-id 937d27e10910141502ye3dac17m66574e054b51502d@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Rejecting weak passwords  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Ответы Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>)
Re: Rejecting weak passwords  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>
>> No. Any checks at the client are worthless, as they can be bypassed
>> by 10 minutes worth of simple coding in any of a dozen or more
>> languages.
>
> Well, sure, but we're talking about a client going out of their way to
> wrestle the point of the gun toward their own foot, aren't we?  If
> we're worried about the user compromising their own password, we have
> bigger problems, like that slip of paper in their desk drawer with the
> password written on it.  I mean, I know some of these checklists can
> be pretty brain-dead (I've been on both sides of the RFP process many
> times), but it would seem over the top to say that client-side
> password strength checks aren't OK for the reason you give.

See my previous comment about dates. Check-box items aside, I have
absolutely no desire to try to give the illusion of a security
feature, when in reality any user could easily bypass it.


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable?