On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> # Note that auth_pam authentication will send your password >>> unencrypted over the network! >>> # You should only use this kind of login as a convenience when using >>> localhost, otherwise >>> # it is very insecure! Consider commenting out this line on production >>> servers that don't need it. >> >> That's a recipe for disaster. > > It depends what you compare against. MySQL always shipped with root
You should do what's right, not do what others do. ;) I assume Drizzle only listens on localhost by default. So you'd need a system account already. > having empty password. Drizzle ships with no authentication at all. > Allowing users to log in with their system username and password by > default would be a great improvement in security in most cases. > > If drizzle client regains SSL support in the future, the above could > be combined with mandatory SSL connections by default, ie you then use > both SSL and auth_pam, or you comment away both of them. But even > without SSL, there are good arguments to promote auth_pam as it is > better than shipping with no authentication or empty root password. So you're saying that storing system account passwords in plaintext files is a good idea? >> The code could be moved from the C++ to the C API. > > If that could happen some time in the future, I'm sure it will be > used. There's no urgency to it, just that I was documenting auth_pam > tonight and saw this as a usability issue to raise. Shouldn't be hard to do. -- Olaf _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
