pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archivehelp / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:30:33 -0400
Message-ID: <8eb0d254-5816-5317-2f37-49abbc2f8c2c@postgresql.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d57d3b74-be26-af08-956a-b095fd431a41@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <227015d8417f2b4fef03f8966dbfa5cbcc4f44da.camel@j-davis.com>
<20190809030021.GG3194@paquier.xyz>
<3bbf5968ea705700a2605d6db74d8510bea7940b.camel@j-davis.com>
<20190809100922.GI3194@paquier.xyz>
<20190809132850.GL16436@tamriel.snowman.net>
<609482826475e0063c7d71b2449ae31c0d61b232.camel@j-davis.com>
<071e45a6-97f7-1614-371c-98ecb03aed65@postgresql.org>
<daf0017a1a5c2caabf88a4e00f66b4fcbdfeccad.camel@j-davis.com>
<7a7a2f07-d013-eb80-85ba-9edaaf845038@2ndquadrant.com>
<75dff08d-12cd-9e85-97ec-d7db55e224a7@postgresql.org>
<d57d3b74-be26-af08-956a-b095fd431a41@2ndquadrant.com>
On 8/11/19 3:56 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-08-11 21:46, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On 8/11/19 1:00 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 2019-08-09 23:56, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>>> 1. Hierarchical semantics, where you specify the least-secure
>>>> acceptable method:
>>>>
>>>> password_protocol = {any,md5,scram-sha-256,scram-sha-256-plus}
>>>
>>> What would the hierarchy be if scram-sha-512 and scram-sha-512-plus are
>>> added?
>>
>> password_protocol =
>> {any,md5,scram-sha-256,scram-sha-512,scram-sha-256-plus,scram-sha-512-plus}?
>>
>> I'd put one length of digest over another, but I'd still rank a method
>> that uses channel binding has more protections than one that does not.
>
> Sure, but the opposite opinion is also possible.
That's true, and when originally started composing my note I had it as
(256,512,256-plus,512-plus).
But upon further reflection, the reason I ranked the digest-plus methods
above the digest methods is that there is any additional requirement
imposed by them. The digest methods could be invoked either with/without
TLS, whereas the digest-plus methods *must* use TLS. As such, 256-plus
is explicitly asking for an additional security parameter over 512, i.e.
transmission over TLS, so even if it's a smaller digest, it has the
additional channel binding requirement.
Jonathan
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (832B, ../8eb0d254-5816-5317-2f37-49abbc2f8c2c@postgresql.org/2-signature.asc)
download
view thread (46+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <8eb0d254-5816-5317-2f37-49abbc2f8c2c@postgresql.org> Permalink: ../8eb0d254-5816-5317-2f37-49abbc2f8c2c@postgresql.org/ Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/8eb0d254-5816-5317-2f37-49abbc2f8c2c@postgresql.org ·
reply
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: jkatz@postgresql.org, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql@j-davis.com, sfrost@snowman.net, michael@paquier.xyz Subject: Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq In-Reply-To: <8eb0d254-5816-5317-2f37-49abbc2f8c2c@postgresql.org> * 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