On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:07:21PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >> When there is a specific reject rule, why does the server say > >> FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry > > > > It's intentional. We try to expose the minimum amount of knowledge > > about the contents of pg_hba.conf to potential attackers. > > The problem with the message is not that it's uninformative, but that > it's counterfactual. > > ...Robert
I agree (I noticed and was bothered by this today, as a matter of irrelevant fact). I can support the idea of exposing as little as possible of pg_hba.conf, but ISTM the "no pg_hba.conf entry" is exposing too much, by that standard. Just say something like "connection disallowed" and leave it at that -- either it's disallowed by lack of a rule, or by existence of a "reject" rule, or by something else entirely. As long as the message isn't clearly wrong in the "reject" case, as it is now. -- Joshua Tolley / eggyknap End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
