On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:06:03AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > First, I don't think RFC references belong in the release notes, let > > alone RFC links. > > > > Second, there seems to be some confusion over what SCRAM-SHA-256 gives > > us over MD5. I think there are a few benefits: > > > > o packets cannot be replayed as easily, i.e. md5 replayed random salt > > packets with a 50% probability after 16k sessions > > o hard to re-use SCRAM-SHA-256 string if disclosed vs. simple for md5 > > o harder to brute-force trying all possible strings to find a matching > > hash > > > > So if you tell users that SCRAM-SHA-256 is better than MD5 only because > > of one of those, they will not realize that three benefits of changing > > to SCRAM-SHA-256. I might have even missed some benefits. > > If the release notes keep a general tone, perhaps it would be better > to mention as well that SCRAM is the recommended password-based > authentication method moving forward?
Well, we could add "MD5 users are encouraged to switch to SCRAM-SHA-256". Now whether we want to list this as something on the SCRAM-SHA-256 description, or mention it as an incompatibility, or under Migration. I am not clear that MD5 is in such terrible shape that this is warranted. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
