From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>
Cc: magnus@hagander.net <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:01:26 -0500
Message-ID: <20210201220126.GW27507@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57b741e9388f3bd97486615ea1f968c8eee9f055.camel@vmware.com>
References: <c55788dd1773c521c862e8e0dddb367df51222be.camel@vmware.com>
<20210129220101.GE27507@tamriel.snowman.net>
<e5bcc7f6bf9a3bd7751f97e2c34a5b877d3cbe4c.camel@vmware.com>
<CABUevExLkKQFK3un7veD=yoztJO+gnAuAF4RTbdHLF+-pkAfYA@mail.gmail.com>
<20210201164905.GI27507@tamriel.snowman.net>
<57b741e9388f3bd97486615ea1f968c8eee9f055.camel@vmware.com>
Greetings,
* Jacob Champion (pchampion@vmware.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-02-01 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> > > But yes, I think the enforced cleartext password proxying is at the
> > > core of the problem. LDAP also encourages the idea of centralized
> > > password-reuse, which is not exactly a great thing for security.
> >
> > Right- passing around a user's password in the clear (or even through an
> > encrypted tunnel) has been strongly discouraged for a very long time,
> > for very good reason. LDAP does double-down on that by being a
> > centralized password, meaning that someone's entire identity (for all
> > the services that share that LDAP system, at least) are compromised if
> > any one system in the environment is.
>
> Sure. I don't disagree with anything you've said in that paragraph, but
> as someone who's implementing solutions for other people who are
> actually deploying, I don't have a lot of control over whether a
> customer's IT department wants to use LDAP or not. And I'm not holding
> my breath for LDAP servers to start implementing federated identity,
> though that would be nice.
Not sure exactly what you're referring to here but AD already provides
Kerberos with cross-domain trusts (aka forests). The future is here..?
:)
> > Also, if we do add
> > it, I would think we'd have it under the same check as the other
> > sensitive pg_stat_activity fields and not be superuser-only.
>
> Just the standard HAS_PGSTAT_PERMISSIONS(), then?
>
> To double-check -- since giving this ability to the pg_read_all_stats
> role would expand its scope -- could that be dangerous for anyone?
I don't agree that this really expands its scope- in fact, you'll see
that the GSSAPI and SSL user authentication information is already
allowed under HAS_PGSTAT_PERMISSIONS().
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (818B, ../20210201220126.GW27507@tamriel.snowman.net/2-signature.asc)
download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, pchampion@vmware.com, magnus@hagander.net
Subject: Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging
In-Reply-To: <20210201220126.GW27507@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox