Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 02/02/2017 05:50 AM, David Rowley wrote: On 2 February 2017 at 00:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Ok, I'll drop the second patch for now. I committed the first patch after fixing the things you and Michael pointed out. Thanks for the review! dbd69118 caused small compiler

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 2 February 2017 at 00:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Ok, I'll drop the second patch for now. I committed the first patch after > fixing the things you and Michael pointed out. Thanks for the review! dbd69118 caused small compiler warning for me. The attached fixed it. --

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 01/17/2017 11:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function with get_password_type(), without changing the representation

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into > two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function > with get_password_type(), without changing the representation of > pg_authid.rolpassword. That is

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into >> two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function >> with

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into > two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function > with get_password_type(), without changing the representation of > pg_authid.rolpassword. That is

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into two. > The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function with > get_password_type(), without changing the representation of >

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/21/2016 04:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Thanks for having a look! Attached is a new version, with that bug fixed. I have been able more advanced testing without the crash and things seem to work properly. The attached set of tests is also able to pass for all the combinations of hba

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 01:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I just noticed that the manual for CREATE ROLE says: Note that older clients might lack support for the MD5 authentication mechanism that is needed to work with passwords that are stored encrypted. That's is incorrect. The alternative to MD5

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 12/16/2016 03:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Actually, it does still perform that check. There's a new function, > plain_crypt_verify, that passwordcheck uses now. plain_crypt_verify() is > intended to work with any

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

David, * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > > > > Even

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > David, > > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column,

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

David, * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully > > > normalized, because there's still a dependency between

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:08 AM, David Fetter wrote: > Would a view that shows only what's to the left of the first semicolon > suit this purpose? Of course it would, you would just need to make the routines now checking the shape of MD5 and SCRAM identifiers available at SQL

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Heikki, > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully > > normalized, because there's still a dependency between the > > verifier and verifier type columns.

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

Heikki, * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully > normalized, because there's still a dependency between the verifier > and verifier type columns. You will always need to look at the > verifier type to make sense of the

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > It's more convenient to carry the type information with the verifier itself, > in backend code, in pg_dump, etc. Sure, you could have a separate "transfer" > text format that has the prefix, and strip it out when the

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/16/2016 03:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: The only way to distinguish, is to know about every verifier kind there is, and check whether rolpassword looks valid as anything else than a plaintext password. And we

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/16/2016 05:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: On 12/14/16 5:15 AM,

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> From the discussions of last year on

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> From the discussions of last year on -hackers, it was decided to *not* >> have an additional column per complains from a couple of

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >>> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> > I don't follow why we

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> (Robert you were in this set at this point), and the same thing was >> concluded during the informal lunch meeting at PGcon. The point is, >> the existing SCRAM

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> > I don't follow why we can't change the

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow >> > specifying the verifier type

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow > > specifying the verifier type independently. > > That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does. Well,

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow > specifying the verifier type independently. That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: >> On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >>>I would

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > The only way to distinguish, is to know about every verifier kind there is, > and check whether rolpassword looks valid as anything else than a plaintext > password. And we already got tripped by a bug-of-omission on

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>>I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column > >>>of pg_authid

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/15/2016 03:00 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas 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

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column of pg_authid Yes please. This discussion seems to continue to come up

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas 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 /

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 11:41 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Storing plaintext passwords has been bad form for just about

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely > >:) But > >> there's a backwards

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian wrote: >On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely >:) But >> there's a backwards compatibility issue to think about of course. >> >>

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely :) But > there's a backwards compatibility issue to think about of course. > > But -- is there any actual usecase for them anymore? I thought we recommended

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column > > of pg_authid > > Yes please. This discussion seems to continue to come up and I don't entirely understand why

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column > of pg_authid Yes please. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 12:27 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely :) But there's a backwards compatibility issue to think about of course. But -- is there any actual usecase for them anymore? Hmm. At the moment, I don't think there is. But, a

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 12:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: This work is definitely something that should be done before anything else. Need a patch or are you on it? I'm on it.. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 12/09/2016 10:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> wrote: >> >>> Couple of things I should write down before I forget: >>> >>> 1. It's a bit

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > The tip of the work branch can now do SCRAM authentication, when a user has > a plaintext password in pg_authid.rolpassword. The reverse doesn't work, > however: you cannot do plain "password" authentication, when the

pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/09/2016 10:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Couple of things I should write down before I forget: 1. It's a bit cumbersome that the scram verifiers stored in pg_authid.rolpassword don't have any clear indication