Re: Rejecting weak passwords
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1403.1254152325@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Rejecting weak passwords ("Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rejecting weak passwords
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Actually there's a much bigger problem with asking the backend to reject >> weak passwords: what ya gonna do with a pre-MD5'd string? Which is >> exactly what the backend is going to always get, in a security-conscious >> environment. > I'm thinking of the case where somebody changes his or her > password interactively on the command line, with pgAdmin III, > or similar. People would hardly use the above in that case, Really? If pgAdmin has a password-change function that doesn't use client-side password encryption then somebody should file a bug against it. Sending unencrypted passwords exposes the password at least to the postmaster logfile. createuser has been doing encryption, unless specifically commanded not to, for a long time. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: