Horton

Re: Rejecting weak passwords

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, mlortiz <mlortiz@uci.cu>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
Date: 2009-10-16T15:29:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > If we were using some kind of real public key system and someone
> > suggested breaking it to add password complexity checking, I would
> > understand the outrage here.  But I don't understand why everyone is
> > so worked up about having an *optional* *flag* to force plaintext
> > instead of MD5.  I might be wrong here, but can't a determined
> > attacker brute-force an MD5 anyway?  The very fact that people are
> > suggesting that password checking might be feasible even on a
> > pre-MD5'd password by using a dictionary suggests that we're not
> > getting a whole lot of real security here.  And even if not, dude,
> > it's an *optional* *flag*.
> 
> Yes, and it's an optional flag that could perfectly well be implemented
> in the plugin that I think we do have consensus to add a hook for.
> The argument is over why do we need to litter the core system with it.

So, are we agreed to provide a hook on the server side, but to use it
you have to configure your system with SSL and 'password'?  I can add
that to the TODO list.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +