Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
<aht@8kdata.com> wrote:
>     I know this is a lost battle. But please bear with me for a minute.

I admire your courage.

>     But just a bit more is needed to make it really a big announcement and
> provide real value to (I guess, mostly but very interesting) enterprise
> customers, for which MITM and impersonating are big things. The good news is
> that adding channel binding is like inverse Paretto: a 20% of extra effort
> (I bet significantly less) leads to 80% improvement.

We'll get that into PG11, don't worry. At least Heikki or I will submit a patch.

>     So CF v10 is over. So we're on testing phase. Can't we consider this a
> "missing feature bug"? ^_^

We should really focus on stability. There is still a bit more to do,
and for SCRAM we have added already a lot of infrastructure so this
should be improved first. And then we can work on extending it on a
sane basis.
--
Michael