I assume this is not a TODO.
---
Magnus Hagander wrote:
The default on *all* windows versions since NT 4.0 (which is when the
directory we use was added) will put this file in a protected directory.
The only case when
Added to TODO for Win32:
o Check .pgpass file permissions
---
Shane Ambler wrote:
Michael Schmidt wrote:
Fellow PostgreSQL fans,
1. I don't see that this would pose a major security risk. In
fact, in
Are we sure we want to do this? (Sorry, didn't notice this thread last
time)
The default on *all* windows versions since NT 4.0 (which is when the
directory we use was added) will put this file in a protected directory.
The only case when it's not protected by default is if you're usnig FAT
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are we sure we want to do this? (Sorry, didn't notice this thread last
time)
The default on *all* windows versions since NT 4.0 (which is when the
directory we use was added) will put this file in a protected directory.
The only case when it's not protected by default
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are we sure we want to do this? (Sorry, didn't notice this thread last
time)
The default on *all* windows versions since NT 4.0 (which is when the
directory we use was added) will put this file in a protected directory.
The only case when it's not
The default on *all* windows versions since NT 4.0 (which is when the
directory we use was added) will put this file in a protected directory.
The only case when it's not protected by default is if you're usnig FAT
filesystem, in which case there is nothing you can do about it anyway.
On
Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Regarding how I concluded
that PGPASSFILE was deprecated for pg_dump, I offer the following.
1. The documentation for pg_dump in the manual (Section VI) includes a
section labeled Environment. This lists PGDATABASE,
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are we sure we want to do this? (Sorry, didn't notice this thread last
time)
The default on *all* windows versions since NT 4.0 (which is when the
directory we use was added) will put this file in a protected directory.
Is there truly such a thing on a windows PC? All
Tony Caduto wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are we sure we want to do this? (Sorry, didn't notice this thread last
time)
The default on *all* windows versions since NT 4.0 (which is when the
directory we use was added) will put this file in a protected directory.
Is there truly such a
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tony Caduto wrote:
What about having a wallet type system where the user can create a pass
phrase to protect a generated key that would get
loaded once per session. That is how KDE allows users to store passwords.
If we wanted to do that, we could
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tony Caduto wrote:
What about having a wallet type system where the user can create a pass
phrase to protect a generated key that would get
loaded once per session. That is how KDE allows users to store passwords.
If we wanted to
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Just to make things clear, this wouldn't be about another auth method.
Windows has an API to store arbitrary passwords in a secure way. At
least it does in XP+, not sure if it was in 2000.
Would it really solve Tony's problem though? I'm not familiar with the
API you're
Dave Page wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Just to make things clear, this wouldn't be about another auth method.
Windows has an API to store arbitrary passwords in a secure way. At
least it does in XP+, not sure if it was in 2000.
Would it really solve Tony's problem though? I'm not
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Just to make things clear, this wouldn't be about another auth method.
Windows has an API to store arbitrary passwords in a secure way. At
least it does in XP+, not sure if it was in 2000.
Would it really solve Tony's problem
Michael Schmidt wrote:
Fellow PostgreSQL fans,
1. I don't see that this would pose a major security risk. In
fact, in applications where the user enters the password for each
session, the password need never be saved to disk, which seems a
definite security advantage. Some folks have
Mr. Lane and Mr. Momjian,
Well, I asked and I got an answer. So be it. Regarding how I concluded that
PGPASSFILE was deprecated for pg_dump, I offer the following.
1. The documentation for pg_dump in the manual (Section VI) includes a section
labeled Environment. This lists PGDATABASE,
Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Regarding how I concluded
that PGPASSFILE was deprecated for pg_dump, I offer the following.
1. The documentation for pg_dump in the manual (Section VI) includes a
section labeled Environment. This lists PGDATABASE, PGHOST, PGPORT,
and
Fellow PostgreSQL fans,
Last year there was a pretty lengthy discussion (Tom Lane offered a lot of
insights) on this list about deprecating the PGPASSWORD environmental variable.
I understand the security issues here very well. However, up through version
8.1, it has been easy to use pg_dump
Michael Schmidt wrote:
Fellow PostgreSQL fans, Last year there was a pretty lengthy discussion
(Tom Lane offered a lot of insights) on this list about deprecating
the PGPASSWORD environmental variable. I understand the security issues
here very well. However, up through version 8.1, it has
Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, it appears
from the documentation that the PGPASSFILE environmental variable has
been deprecated for pg_dump and pg_restore.
Eh? Certainly not ... where did you get that idea?
I would like to ask that we return to outputting the Password
Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, it appears
from the documentation that the PGPASSFILE environmental variable has
been deprecated for pg_dump and pg_restore.
Eh? Certainly not ... where did you get that idea?
I assumed he meant the PASSWORD environment
21 matches
Mail list logo
