Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e2c82898-8e8a-d1c6-d748-902c6dd366b9@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/17/2017 02:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> At least this has the merit of making \password simpler from psql >> without a kind of --method option: if the backend is 9.6 or older, >> just generate a MD5-hash, and SCRAM-hash for newer versions. >> PQencryptPassword still needs to be extended so as it accepts a hash >> method though. > > What if the user doesn't want to switch to SCRAM because they also use > some connector that hasn't been updated to support it? > > I bet there will be a lot of people in that situation. You could use the less secure server-side ALTER USER to set the password in that case. Or use an older client. But I agree, it's a bit weird if we don't allow the user to generate an MD5 hash, if he insists. I think we still need a 'method' option to \password. It would make sense to have \password obey password_encryption GUC. Then \password and ALTER USER would do the same thing, which would be less surprising. Although it's also a bit weird for a GUC to affect client-side behavior, so perhaps better to just document that \password will create a SCRAM verifier, unless you explicitly tell it to create an MD5 hash, and add a 'method' parameter to it. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: