Re: Patch to include PAM support...

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Because (a) it greatly increases the scope of the vulnerability,
>
> > How?  It is just a new authentication method with the same problems as
> > our current ones.
>
> No, it is not *a* new authentication method, it is an open interface
> that could be plugged into almost anything.  We need the top-level
> postmaster process to be absolutely reliable; plugging into "almost
> anything" is not conducive to reliability.

But isn't that the responsibility of the administrator?  They are
already responsible for the IDENT servers they use.  Isn't this the same
thing.


> Besides, an hour ago you were ready to reject this patch for lack of
> interest.  Why are you suddenly so eager to ignore the risks and apply
> it anyway?

Because some have now said they want it and I do not see the _new_ risks.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026