On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:52:15PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 07:00:10PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > suggested to me as one change we could make that would reduce the risk > > > of disk-based attacks while trading that off for a higher risk on the > > > side of network-based attacks while not breaking the existing network > > > protocol. To make it very clear- it is not a solution but rather a poor > > > bandaid. What we really need is a new password based protocol which is > > > based on a future-proof, well designed protocol, such as SCRAM. > > > > Again, agreed. > > Great. > > Have you had a chance to review the SCRAM RFC or do you have any > questions as it relates to how SCRAM works? I'd love to start a proper > discussion about how we go about implementing it.
I am feeling we have to wait for 9.5 to settle first. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
