Обсуждение: passwordcheck: Log cracklib diagnostics
A user tried to use the cracklib build-time option of the passwordcheck module. This failed, as it turned out because there was no dictionary installed in the right place, but the error was not properly reported, because the existing code just throws away the error message from cracklib. Attached is a patch that changes this by logging any error message returned from the cracklib call. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
> On 25 Aug 2020, at 12:20, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > A user tried to use the cracklib build-time option of the passwordcheck module. This failed, as it turned out becausethere was no dictionary installed in the right place, but the error was not properly reported, because the existingcode just throws away the error message from cracklib. Attached is a patch that changes this by logging any errormessage returned from the cracklib call. +1 on this, it's also in line with the example documentation from cracklib. The returned error is potentially a bit misleading now, as it might say claim that a strong password is easily cracked if the dictionary fails load. Given that there is no way to distinguish between the class of returned errors it's hard to see how we can do better though. While poking at this, we might as well update the docs to point to the right URL for CrackLib as it moved from Sourceforge five years ago. The attached diff fixes that. cheers ./daniel
Вложения
On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 13:48 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 25 Aug 2020, at 12:20, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > A user tried to use the cracklib build-time option of the passwordcheck module. This failed, as it turned out becausethere was no dictionary installed in the right place, but the error was not > > properly reported, because the existing code just throws away the error message from cracklib. Attached is a patch thatchanges this by logging any error message returned from the cracklib call. > > +1 on this, it's also in line with the example documentation from cracklib. > The returned error is potentially a bit misleading now, as it might say claim > that a strong password is easily cracked if the dictionary fails load. Given > that there is no way to distinguish between the class of returned errors it's > hard to see how we can do better though. > > While poking at this, we might as well update the docs to point to the right > URL for CrackLib as it moved from Sourceforge five years ago. The attached > diff fixes that. +1 on both patches. Yours, Laurenz Albe
On 2020-08-25 15:32, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 13:48 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 25 Aug 2020, at 12:20, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> A user tried to use the cracklib build-time option of the passwordcheck module. This failed, as it turned out becausethere was no dictionary installed in the right place, but the error was not >>> properly reported, because the existing code just throws away the error message from cracklib. Attached is a patch thatchanges this by logging any error message returned from the cracklib call. >> >> +1 on this, it's also in line with the example documentation from cracklib. >> The returned error is potentially a bit misleading now, as it might say claim >> that a strong password is easily cracked if the dictionary fails load. Given >> that there is no way to distinguish between the class of returned errors it's >> hard to see how we can do better though. >> >> While poking at this, we might as well update the docs to point to the right >> URL for CrackLib as it moved from Sourceforge five years ago. The attached >> diff fixes that. > > +1 on both patches. Pushed both patches, thanks. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services