Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:44:36 +0000
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: scram and \password
Message-ID: <20170418054436.GA123669@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: 
 <CAB7nPqQ3QiPMgGv5OCz1wsocx7PHdZg5ursQOpyOb96AZuvmGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5478ab75-404f-9490-9355-dc1365ce3d7f@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqTLzbHp5XmREoqiL31uF8VRz4jM1VhDRMZLOJuVg8gZoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <dead641a-1fc8-0fd7-89d6-b818ac61b31a@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqQmJ5t=rd67paE7DWxuSi0C4X=5_pnzZchH7qFkBHy==A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYk+xfnvYC4xtQD4qFdu7xKn6bRLC-baH5MDdtyCSxg6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f56a2116-a466-ad6c-03d5-413294bfca9f@iki.fi>
 <20170410035323.GA2846583@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <CAB7nPqSbsCBCxy8-DtwzRxYgTnbGUtY4uFEkLQhG=R=uo=g8Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56f6c214-f433-3758-7753-3081963b45a9@iki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56f6c214-f433-3758-7753-3081963b45a9@iki.fi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:07:12PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/10/2017 08:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >As there have been some conflicts because of the commit of SASLprep,
> >here is a rebased set of patches. A couple of things worth noting:
> >- SASLprep does an allocation of the prepared password string. It is
> >definitely better to do all the ground work in pg_saslprep but this
> >costs a free() call with a #ifdef FRONTEND at the end of
> >scram_build_verifier().
> >- Patch 0005 does that:
> >+           /*
> >+            * Hash password using SCRAM-SHA-256 when connecting to servers
> >+            * newer than Postgres 10, and hash with MD5 otherwise.
> >+            */
> >+           if (pset.sversion < 100000)
> >+               encrypted_password = PQencryptPassword(pw1, user, "md5");
> >+           else
> >+               encrypted_password = PQencryptPassword(pw1, user, "scram");
> >Actually I am thinking that guessing the hashing function according to
> >the value of password_encryption would make the most sense. Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks! I've been busy on the other thread on future-proofing the protocol
> with negotiating the SASL mechanism, I'll come back to this once we get that
> settled. By the end of the week, I presume.

This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers