Hi, On 2015-03-04 10:52:30 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > I've been discussing this with a few folks outside of the PG community > (Debian and Openwall people specifically) and a few interesting ideas > have come out of that which might be useful to discuss. > > The first is a "don't break anything" approach which would move the > needle between "network data sensitivity" and "on-disk data sensitivity" > a bit back in the direction of making the network data more sensitive.
I think that's a really bad tradeoff for pg. There's pretty good reasons not to encrypt database connections. I don't think you really can compare routinely encrypted stuff like imap and submission with pg. Neither is it as harmful to end up with leaked hashes for database users as it is for a email provider's authentication database. > A lot of discussion has been going on with SCRAM and SASL, which is all > great, but that means we end up with a dependency on SASL or we have to > reimplement SCRAM (which I've been thinking might not be a bad idea- > it's actually not that hard), but another suggestion was made which may > be worthwhile to consider- OpenSSL and GnuTLS both support TLS-SRP, the > RFC for which is here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5054.txt. We already > have OpenSSL and therefore this wouldn't create any new dependencies and > might be slightly simpler to implement. We don't have a hard dependency openssl, so I can't really see that being a fully viable alternative to md5 TBH. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers