Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: mlortiz <mlortiz@uci.cu>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2009-09-28T14:24:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2009/9/28 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>: > > > Ing. Marcos L. Ortíz Valmaseda wrote: >>> >>> My vote is for #3, if anything. >>> >>> >> You have to analyze all points before to do this. I vote too for the third option, but you have to be clear that how do you ´ll check the weakness of the password: >> 1- For example: the length should be greater that 6 char.. >> 2- The password should be have a combination fo numbers, letters and others dots >> >> Things like that you have to think very well, or to do a question to the list asking which are the best options. >> >> I think the same about the PAM and LDAP auth >> >> > > I'm voting for #3 precisely so postgres doesn't have to think about it, and the module author will do all the work implementing whatever rules they want to enforce. That makes a lot of sense. Then we could perhaps ship a cracklib2 provider in contrib. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/