On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 12/09/2016 10:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi>
>> wrote:
>>> Couple of things I should write down before I forget:
>>> 1. It's a bit cumbersome that the scram verifiers stored in
>>> pg_authid.rolpassword don't have any clear indication that they're scram
>>> verifiers. MD5 hashes are readily identifiable by the "md5" prefix. I
>>> think
>>> we should use a "scram-sha-256:" for scram verifiers.
>> scram-sha-256 would make the most sense to me.
>> Actually, I think it'd be awfully nice to also prefix plaintext passwords
>>> with "plain:", but I'm not sure it's worth breaking the compatibility, if
>>> there are tools out there that peek into rolpassword. Thoughts?
>> pgbouncer is the only thing coming up in mind. It looks at pg_shadow
>> for password values. pg_dump'ing data from pre-10 instances will also
>> need to adapt. I see tricky the compatibility with the exiting CREATE
>> USER PASSWORD command though, so I am wondering if that's worth the
>> complication.
>> 2. It's currently not possible to use the plaintext "password"
>>> authentication method, for a user that has a SCRAM verifier in
>>> rolpassword.
>>> That seems like an oversight. We can't do MD5 authentication with a SCRAM
>>> verifier, but "password" we could.
>> Yeah, that should be possible...
> The tip of the work branch can now do SCRAM authentication, when a user
> has a plaintext password in pg_authid.rolpassword. The reverse doesn't
> work, however: you cannot do plain "password" authentication, when the user
> has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword. It gets worse: plain
> "password" authentication doesn't check if the string stored in
> pg_authid.rolpassword is a SCRAM authenticator, and treats it as a
> plaintext password, so you can do this:
> PGPASSWORD="scram-sha-256:mDBuqO1mEekieg==:4096:17dc259499c1
> a184c26ee5b19715173d9354195f510b4d3af8be585acb39ae33:d3d7131
> 49c6becbbe56bae259aafe4e95b79ab7e3b50f2fbd850ea7d7b7c114f"  psql
> postgres  -h localhost -U scram_user
> I think we're going to have a more bugs like this, if we don't start to
> explicitly label plaintext passwords as such.
> So, let's add "plain:" prefix to plaintext passwords, in
> pg_authid.rolpassword. With that, these would be valid values in
> pg_authid.rolpassword:
> plain:foo
> md55a962ce7a24371a10e85627a484cac28
> scram-sha-256:mDBuqO1mEekieg==:4096:17dc259499c1a184c26ee5b1
> 9715173d9354195f510b4d3af8be585acb39ae33:d3d713149c6becbbe56
> bae259aafe4e95b79ab7e3b50f2fbd850ea7d7b7c114f

I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely :) But
there's a backwards compatibility issue to think about of course.

But -- is there any actual usecase for them anymore?

If not, another option could be to just specifically check that it's *not*
"md5<something>" or "scram-<something>:<something>". That would invalidate
plaintext passwords that have those texts in them of course, but what's the
likelyhood of that in reality?

Though I guess that might at least in theory be more bug-prone, so going
with a "plain:" prefix seems like a good idea as well.

> But anything that doesn't begin with "plain:", "md5", or "scram-sha-256:"
> would be invalid. You shouldn't have invalid values in the column, but if
> you do, all the authentication mechanisms would reject it.
> It would be nice to also change the format of MD5 passwords to have a
> colon, as in "md5:<hash>", but that's probably not worth breaking
> compatibility for. Almost no-one stores passwords in plaintext, so changing
> the format of that wouldn't affect many people, but there might well be
> tools out there that peek into MD5 hashes.

There are definitely tools that do that, so +1 on leaving that alone.

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

Reply via email to