On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> 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? > >I thought we recommended 'password' for SSL connections because if you >use MD5 passwords the password text layout is known and that simplifies >cryptanalysis.
No, that makes no sense. And whether you use 'password' or 'md5' authentication is a different question than whether you store passwords in plaintext or as md5 hashes. Magnus was asking whether it ever makes sense to *store* passwords in plaintext. Since you brought it up, there is a legitimate argument to be made that 'password' authentication is more secure than 'md5', when SSL is used. Namely, if an attacker can acquire contents of pg_authid e.g. by stealing a backup tape, with 'md5' authentication he can log in as any user, using just the stolen hashes. But with 'password', he needs to reverse the hash first. It's not a great difference, but it's something. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers