Re: worried about PGPASSWORD drop
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: worried about PGPASSWORD drop |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20895.1030543281@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: worried about PGPASSWORD drop (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: worried about PGPASSWORD drop
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > The reason for the suggested removal is that we don't have a way of > knowing with OS's are secure, and which are not. If we could determine > which OS's were secure, and enable it only on those, it would be OK to > keep it. It is not our job to dictate security policy to users. Even on a platform where environment variables are insecure, the user might be willing to use PGPASSWORD. For example, suppose it's a laptop with only one user, connecting via psql to a remote server that demands passwords. PGPASSWORD could be a perfectly convenient and safe solution. We should deprecate it, explain exactly why it's deprecated (which the current docs fail to do), and leave it up to the user to decide whether it's safe to use in his context. If you want to put in security restrictions that are actually useful, where is the code to verify that PGPASSWORDFILE points at a non-world-readable file? That needs to be there now, not later, or we'll have people moaning about backward compatibility when we finally do plug that hole. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: