Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 09:58:41 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
	samay sharma <smilingsamay@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks
Message-ID: <20220302145841.GA10577@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <1905579.1645810764@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <2718414dc095b716e59e126c03af343997d14c7b.camel@j-davis.com>
 <1980351.1645816239@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <9004b18218eae293f1ee888e49d13d8a6b02810d.camel@j-davis.com>
 <20220228204634.GM10577@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <2738622.1646083128@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220228214255.GO10577@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <Yh28j5PoG+mtAnSH@paquier.xyz>
 <20220301133119.GR10577@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <Yh+FU5vQZYoaOrMl@momjian.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Zif13CGLAmVnkPyw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yh+FU5vQZYoaOrMl@momjian.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220302145841.GA10577%40tamriel.snowman.net>
Precedence: bulk


--Zif13CGLAmVnkPyw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar  1, 2022 at 08:31:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > The last time I played with this area is the recent error handling
> > > improvement with cryptohashes but MD5 has actually helped here in
> > > detecting the problem as a patched OpenSSL would complain if trying to
> > > use MD5 as hash function when FIPS is enabled.
> >=20
> > Having to continue to deal with md5 as an algorithm when it's known to
> > be notably less secure and so much so that organizations essentially ban
> > its use for exactly what we're using it for, in fact, another reason to
>=20
> Really?  I thought it was publicly-visible MD5 hashes that were the
> biggest problem.  Our 32-bit salt during the connection is a problem, of
> course.

Neither are good.  Not sure that we really need to spend a lot of effort
trying to figure out which issue is the biggest problem.

> > remove it, not a reason to keep it.  Better code coverage testing of
> > error paths is the answer to making sure that our error handling behaves
> > properly.
>=20
> What is the logic to removing md5 but keeping 'password'?

I don't think we should keep 'password'.

Thanks,

Stephen

--Zif13CGLAmVnkPyw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=/NG7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Zif13CGLAmVnkPyw--