Re: Rejecting weak passwords
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13907.1255534249@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rejecting weak passwords (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rejecting weak passwords
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> If you're really intent on making that happen, you can have your >> password checker plugin reject crypted passwords; we don't need >> such a questionable rule in core. > Client software would need to have a standard way to know when to use > ENCRYPTED PASSWORD or not. Oh, so you want us to propagate extra support for this blatant security reduction all over the system too? No thank you. This whole line of discussion just proves the point that was made originally: it would be a lot better to do whatever checking you want done on the client side, rather than risk transmitting unencrypted passwords. If you are going to imagine that client-side software knows about such a GUC, you might as well imagine that they have cracklib built in. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: