Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e1f0c36d-62d1-91cd-7b22-0b48e8a6a2f8@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/06/18 23:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/18 16:26, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> On 06/06/18 23:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Aren't we attacking this on the wrong level? We are here attempting to >>> prevent a SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS -> SCRAM-SHA-256 downgrade, but we are not >>> preventing a SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS -> anything-else downgrade. >> >> The latest patch does prevent that, too. That was my complaint at >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/030284cc-d1d6-ce88-b677-a814f61c1880%40iki.fi, >> but it's been fixed now. (Or if you see a case where it still isn't, >> that's a bug.) > > OK, that would do, but we don't do anything about a SCRAM-SHA-256 -> > anything-else downgrade. Instead of tying this to the channel binding, > should we tie it to the authentication type? That would certainly be good. We've always had that problem, even with md5 -> plaintext password downgrade, and it would be nice to fix it. It's quite late in the release cycle already, do you think we should address that now? I could go either way.. What should the option look like? Perhaps something like: allowed_authentication_methods=md5,SCRAM-SHA-256,SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS That would not be very user-friendly, though. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: