Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords
От | Jonathan S. Katz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 43882bd7-a002-dd50-bf9a-401560285485@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 4/23/19 2:57 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:10:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> That's a hard morning... Yes you are right and I can see the failure. >> By the way, grouping everything in one patch looks more adapted to me >> as this tightens all the checks for the different verifier types. > > The afternoon has been better. I have double-checked your patch and > committed it down to v10. Thanks! > Now, there are two things which may need > extra handling: > - Do we add a note in the release notes about that with a SQL query > checking the state of pg_authid? Hmm...well, let's sound it out: - If you have an invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 password (e.g. SCRAM-SHA-256$1234), you would have been unable to log in anyway, so in all likelihood you would either have had an admin reset your password, or you gave up. - If you had a md5 hash with bogus characters in it, it'd be the above as well So likely it's been resolved in some way: the user has been issued a new password or has given up on PostgreSQL With that said, we could do something like: "To determine if this release affects an of your users ability to log in using either the SCRAM-SHA-256 on MD5 password based methods, you can run the following query: <query that finds the now invalid hashes> We advise that you reset the passwords for these users. " > - In ~9.6 we include in md5.h a macro which does not care about hex > characters in the MD5 hash. I think that we should fix that as well, > or perhaps that's not worth caring per the lack of complaints? > Attached is what would be needed. +1 for fixing so its consistent (at least from a behavior standpoint). I confirmed that it's in 9.5 & 9.4 as well. Thanks, Jonathan
Вложения
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: