Subject: Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAB7nPqSMXU35g=W9X74HVeQp0uvgJxvYOuA4A-A3M+0wfEBv-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <56E6D98F.1070701@pgmasters.net>
 <CAB7nPqQYim-=PBHa19p04wSBbgGT=+ts1qWeQj2FG9HSmBX78Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqTssJpBUZ8g9oUTPJ6RPLCZYFtPypzdYgHL1gtuskxwkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56EAF483.3030307@pgmasters.net>
 <CAB7nPqTkoC4NLyyivz2=usUOo47iZnS+2e14nkmVKM3P8hWqwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYeui5crJyn4xxCZLUnxjtcZ1bzzF9-YN9NOQ-wr2f_uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160318181252.GA3127@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CA+TgmobPNhnnMjOwG6s7zFznzh7g3JsUkLFvQBnh4+Ua++_6qA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqRChAg7fUMZJ3FJpVjzaq9yYDPzxtBLOHVMnwjDAgyx=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY790rphHBogXMbTG6MzSeNdoxdBXebEkAet9ZpZ8gvtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqSHTF3pSz1_rQFE74gGUg8dpyP2kNGiw-Eu_DHEoi+okA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABUevExLdymjo_vDCvE4WCsHdp-tjpTMOJgwyQ23y-gFoCAVrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56FAB0D3.6070003@uni-muenster.de>
 <CAB7nPqSjwsY4hYaKh-w4u0EB+YaxnQi7R63J9KgwcRe+RbaXTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoahM22VCuNtM-33WE56WCQ59o_jbF0A3VChdwZ4paaesw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Markwort <julian.markwort@uni-muenster.de>,
 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
 David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
 PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Valery Popov <v.popov@postgrespro.ru>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTHVpcyBUYWxsw7Nu?= <jltallon@adv-solutions.net>
Message-ID: <56FBFF4F.9080505@adv-solutions.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:31:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Icedove/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoahM22VCuNtM-33WE56WCQ59o_jbF0A3VChdwZ4paaesw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 03/30/2016 06:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> So basically the use of the ENCRYPTED keyword means "if it does 
> already seem to be the sort of MD5 blob we're expecting, turn it into 
> that". 

If it does NOT already seem to be... I guess?

> And we just rely on the format to distinguish between an MD5 verifier 
> and an unencrypted password. Personally, I think a good start here, 
> and I think you may have something like this in the patch already, 
> would be to split rolpassword into two columns, say rolencryption and 
> rolpassword. 

This inches closer to Michael's suggestion to have multiple verifiers 
per pg_authid user ...

> rolencryption says how the password verifier is encrypted and 
> rolpassword contains the verifier itself. Initially, rolencryption 
> will be 'plain' or 'md5', but later we can add 'scram' as another 
> choice, or maybe it'll be more specific like 'scram-hmac-doodad'.

May I suggest using  "{" <scheme>["."<encoding>] "}" just like Dovecot does?

e.g. "{md5.hex}e748797a605a1c95f3d6b5f140b2d528"

where no "{ ... }" prefix means just fallback to the old method of 
trying to guess what the blob contains?
     This would invalidate PLAIN passwords beginning with "{", though, 
so some measures would be needed.

> And then maybe introduce syntax like this: alter user rhaas set 
> password 'raw-unencrypted-passwordt' using 'verifier-method'; alter 
> user rhaas set password verifier 'verifier-goes-here' using 
> 'verifier-method'; That might require making verifier a key word, 
> which would be good to avoid. Perhaps we could use "password 
> validator" instead? 

I'd like USING best ... though by prepending the schema for ENCRYPTED, 
the required information is already conveyed within the verifier, so no 
need to specify it again :)


Just my .02€


     / J.L.


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