Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:43:06 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords
Message-ID: <20190423144306.GQ6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <016deb6b-1f0a-8e9f-1833-a8675b170aa9@postgresql.org>
 <4240a41f-a957-fd7d-7c24-31683f259b9d@postgresql.org>
 <20190422015051.GA3433@paquier.xyz>
 <3033.1555940554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190422135215.GG6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20190423000619.GD2712@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9eLN5QRt1U3SrBU/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190423000619.GD2712@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--9eLN5QRt1U3SrBU/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 09:52:15AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I recall having exactly that debate when SCRAM was being worked on and
> > the push-back basically being that it was more work and we'd have to
> > have additional syntax for ALTER USER, et al.  I wish I had had more
> > time to spend on that discussion.  Water under the bridge now, but
> > hopefully we learn from this and maybe someone refactors how this works
> > sometime soon (or, at least, whenever we add the next password
> > encoding).
>=20
> I am not sure that this would have been more work for ALTER TABLE as
> we could have relied on just password_encryption to do the work as we
> do now.  The reluctance was to have more additional columns in
> pg_authid as far as I recall, and I sided with having a separate
> catalog, and more independent verifier type checks in the catalogs, as
> you may recall, which would have also eased password rollups for a
> given role.

Yes, having an indepedent catalog table would have been a good approach
too, much better than where we're at now.  I hope someone has time to
work on that for a future version.

Thanks!

Stephen

--9eLN5QRt1U3SrBU/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=RKvJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9eLN5QRt1U3SrBU/--