Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
От | Jacob Champion |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAWbhmgiKJyKBigLx5mEb=3Y0PxNjv1TOkD+pFRBbZbJ0x++8g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER (Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:10 PM Andrey Chudnovskiy <Andrey.Chudnovskiy@microsoft.com> wrote: > We can support both passing the token from an upstream client and libpq implementing OAUTH2 protocol to obtaining one. Right, I agree that we could potentially do both. > Libpq passing toked directly from an upstream client is useful in other scenarios: > 1. Enterprise clients, built with .Net / Java and using provider-specific authentication libraries, like MSAL for AAD.Those can also support more advance provider-specific token acquisition flows. > 2. Resource-tight (like IoT) clients. Those can be compiled without optional libpq flag not including the iddawc or otherdependency. What I don't understand is how the OAUTHBEARER mechanism helps you in this case. You're short-circuiting the negotiation where the server tells the client what provider to use and what scopes to request, and instead you're saying "here's a secret string, just take it and validate it with magic." I realize the ability to pass an opaque token may be useful, but from the server's perspective, I don't see what differentiates it from the password auth method plus a custom authenticator plugin. Why pay for the additional complexity of OAUTHBEARER if you're not going to use it? --Jacob
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: