From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: scram and \password
In-reply-to: <39228d95-2560-19e4-d907-b1fd5a75fd23@joeconway.com>
References: 
 <CAMkU=1wfBgFPbfAMYZQE78p=VhZX7nN86aWkp0QcCp=+KxZ=bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqSELwmfwgOt8U_rK15sHWuGeLhsWYihRtq9ADC3MZ=HTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY3VmPTn8gaKhx2fXXiMX_U2Ozf3qMXyVa+zsuMMox1HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqTZNZkbezTZ3WrTBU42cAuAGjyukJAs=iw=KN4GZGoXxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYHvtOYex0N0DTm3hAvgZezZZpH789a13MzHDh_VgG9Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <29551.1489459676@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <e4c3807b-fc53-5657-5372-b156e673a9d5@iki.fi>
 <39228d95-2560-19e4-d907-b1fd5a75fd23@joeconway.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
	message dated "Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:30:25 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6424.1489506016.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:40:16 -0400
Message-ID: <6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> On 03/14/2017 03:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> If the server isn't set up to do SCRAM authentication, i.e. there are no
>> "scram" entries in pg_hba.conf, and you set yourself a SCRAM verifier,
>> you have just locked yourself out of the system. I think that's a
>> non-starter. There needs to be some more intelligence in the decision.

> Yes, this was exactly my concern.

This seems like a serious usability fail.


>> It would be a lot more sensible, if there was a way to specify in
>> pg_hba.conf, "scram-or-md5". We punted on that for PostgreSQL 10, but
>> perhaps we should try to cram that in, after all.

> I was also thinking about that. Basically a primary method and a
> fallback. If that were the case, a gradual transition could happen, and
> if we want \password to enforce best practice it would be ok.

Why exactly would anyone want "md5 only"?  I should think that "scram
only" is a sensible pg_hba setting, if the DBA feels that md5 is too
insecure, but I do not see the point of "md5 only" in 2017.  I think
we should just start interpreting that as "md5 or better".

			regards, tom lane


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