On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes:
> > On 10/17/2016 05:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The real issue here is whether we are willing to say that
> >> Postgres simply does not work anymore on machines without standard
> entropy
> >> sources.  Doesn't matter whether the user cares about the strength of
> >> cancel keys, we're just blowing them off.  That seems a bit extreme
> >> from here.  I think we should be willing to fall back to the old code
> >> if we can't find a real entropy source.
> > I'm scared of having pg_strong_random() that is willing to fall back to
> > not-so-strong values. We can rename it, of course, but it seems
> > dangerous to use a weak random-number generator for authentication
> > purposes (query cancel, MD5 salts, SCRAM nonces).
> I think that it's probably moot on all modern platforms, and even on
> platforms as old as pademelon, the answer for people who care about
> strong security is "--with-openssl".  What I'm on about here is whether
> we should make people who don't care about that jump through hoops.
> Not caring is a perfectly reasonable stance for non-exposed postmasters;
> otherwise we wouldn't have the "trust" auth method.
> I would be satisfied with making it a non-default build option, eg
> add this to pg_strong_random:

+1 for that approach. I really wouldn't want to see it fall back completely
transparently in case something stops working. But if it's a non-default
build option, that's not a problem, and it should make it possible to make
it work on older platforms.

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Reply via email to