On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > But, a password stored in plaintext works with either MD5 or SCRAM, or any > future authentication mechanism. So as soon as we have SCRAM authentication, > it becomes somewhat useful again. > > In a nutshell: > > auth / stored MD5 SCRAM plaintext > ----------------------------------------- > password Y Y Y > md5 Y N Y > scram N Y Y > > If a password is stored in plaintext, it can be used with any authentication > mechanism. And the plaintext 'password' authentication mechanism works with > any kind of a stored password. But an MD5 hash cannot be used with SCRAM > authentication, or vice versa.
So.. I have been thinking about this portion of the thread. And what I find the most scary is not the fact that we use plain passwords for SCRAM authentication, it is the fact that we would need to do a catalog lookup earlier in the connection workflow to decide what is the connection protocol to use depending on the username provided in the startup packet if the pg_hba.conf entry matching the user and database names uses "password". And, honestly, why do we actually need to have a support table that spread? SCRAM is designed to be secure, so it seems to me that it would on the contrary a bad idea to encourage the use of plain passwords if we actually think that they should never be used (they are actually useful for located, development instances, not production ones). So what I would suggest would be to have a support table like that: auth / stored MD5 SCRAM plaintext ----------------------------------------- password Y Y N md5 Y N Y scram N N Y So here is an idea for things to do now: 1) do not change the format of the existing passwords 2) do not change pg_authid 3) block access to instances if "password" or "md5" are used in pg_hba.conf if the user have a SCRAM verifier. 4) block access if "scram" is used and if user has a plain or md5 verifier. 5) Allow access if "scram" is used and if user has a SCRAM verifier. We had a similar discussion regarding verifier/password formats last year but that did not end well. It would be sad to fall back again into this discussion and get no result. If somebody wants to support access to SCRAM with plain password entries, why not. But that would gain a -1 from me regarding the earlier lookup of pg_authid needed to do the decision making on the protocol to use. And I think that we want SCRAM to be designed to be a maximum stable and secure. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
