Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 12/20/2016 03:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> The first thing is to be able to understand in the SCRAM code if a >> string is UTF-8 or not, and this code is in src/common/. pg_wchar.c >> offers a set of routines

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 12/20/2016 03:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: The first thing is to be able to understand in the SCRAM code if a string is UTF-8 or not, and this code is in src/common/. pg_wchar.c offers a set of routines exactly for this purpose, which is built with libpq but that's not available for

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 02/02/2017 05:50 AM, David Rowley wrote: On 2 February 2017 at 00:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Ok, I'll drop the second patch for now. I committed the first patch after fixing the things you and Michael pointed out. Thanks for the review! dbd69118 caused small compiler

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 2 February 2017 at 00:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Ok, I'll drop the second patch for now. I committed the first patch after > fixing the things you and Michael pointed out. Thanks for the review! dbd69118 caused small compiler warning for me. The attached fixed it. --

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 01/17/2017 11:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function with get_password_type(), without changing the representation

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > FWIW, this patch is on a "waiting on author" state and that's right. > As the discussion on SASLprepare() and the decisions regarding the way > to implement it, or at least have it, are still pending, I am not >

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > We seem to be caught between adding lots of new things as parameters > and adding new detail into pg_hba.conf. > > Parameters like password_encryption are difficult here because they > essentially repeat what has already

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 19 January 2017 at 06:32, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:30:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> > The latest versions document this precisely, but I agree with Peter's >> > concern

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:30:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > The latest versions document this precisely, but I agree with Peter's > > concern > > about plain "scram". Suppose it's 2025 and PostgreSQL support SASL

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > And Heikki has mentioned me that he'd prefer not having an extra > dependency for the normalization, which is LGPL-licensed by the way. > So I have looked at the SASLprep business to see what should be done > to

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > The latest versions document this precisely, but I agree with Peter's concern > about plain "scram". Suppose it's 2025 and PostgreSQL support SASL mechanisms > OAUTHBEARER, SCRAM-SHA-256, SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS, and

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:52:06AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > pg_hba.conf uses "scram" as keyword, but

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into > two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function > with get_password_type(), without changing the representation of > pg_authid.rolpassword. That is

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into >> two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function >> with

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into > two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function > with get_password_type(), without changing the representation of > pg_authid.rolpassword. That is

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into two. > The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function with > get_password_type(), without changing the representation of >

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/21/2016 04:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Thanks for having a look! Attached is a new version, with that bug fixed. I have been able more advanced testing without the crash and things seem to work properly. The attached set of tests is also able to pass for all the combinations of hba

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 01:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I just noticed that the manual for CREATE ROLE says: Note that older clients might lack support for the MD5 authentication mechanism that is needed to work with passwords that are stored encrypted. That's is incorrect. The alternative to MD5

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 12/16/2016 03:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Actually, it does still perform that check. There's a new function, > plain_crypt_verify, that passwordcheck uses now. plain_crypt_verify() is > intended to work with any

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

David, * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > > > > Even

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > David, > > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column,

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

David, * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully > > > normalized, because there's still a dependency between

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:08 AM, David Fetter wrote: > Would a view that shows only what's to the left of the first semicolon > suit this purpose? Of course it would, you would just need to make the routines now checking the shape of MD5 and SCRAM identifiers available at SQL

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Heikki, > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully > > normalized, because there's still a dependency between the > > verifier and verifier type columns.

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

Heikki, * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully > normalized, because there's still a dependency between the verifier > and verifier type columns. You will always need to look at the > verifier type to make sense of the

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > It's more convenient to carry the type information with the verifier itself, > in backend code, in pg_dump, etc. Sure, you could have a separate "transfer" > text format that has the prefix, and strip it out when the

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/16/2016 03:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: The only way to distinguish, is to know about every verifier kind there is, and check whether rolpassword looks valid as anything else than a plaintext password. And we

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/16/2016 05:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: On 12/14/16 5:15 AM,

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> From the discussions of last year on

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > In the case where the binaries are *not* built with libidn, I think > that we had better reject valid UTF-8 string directly and just allow > ASCII? SASLprep is a no-op on ASCII characters. > > Thoughts about this

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> From the discussions of last year on -hackers, it was decided to *not* >> have an additional column per complains from a couple of

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >>> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> > I don't follow why we

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> (Robert you were in this set at this point), and the same thing was >> concluded during the informal lunch meeting at PGcon. The point is, >> the existing SCRAM

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> > I don't follow why we can't change the

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow >> > specifying the verifier type

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow > > specifying the verifier type independently. > > That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does. Well,

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow > specifying the verifier type independently. That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: >> On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >>>I would

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > The only way to distinguish, is to know about every verifier kind there is, > and check whether rolpassword looks valid as anything else than a plaintext > password. And we already got tripped by a bug-of-omission on

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>>I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column > >>>of pg_authid

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/15/2016 03:00 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: But, a password stored in plaintext works with either MD5 or SCRAM, or any future authentication mechanism. So as soon as we have SCRAM authentication, it becomes somewhat

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column of pg_authid Yes please. This discussion seems to continue to come up

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > SASLPrep is defined here: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4013 > And stringprep is here: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3454 > So that's roughly applying a conversion from the mapping table, taking > into

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > But, a password stored in plaintext works with either MD5 or SCRAM, or any > future authentication mechanism. So as soon as we have SCRAM authentication, > it becomes somewhat useful again. > > In a nutshell: > > auth /

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 11:41 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Storing plaintext passwords has been bad form for just about

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian 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

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian 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. >> >>

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

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

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column > > of pg_authid > > Yes please. This discussion seems to continue to come up and I don't entirely understand why

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column > of pg_authid Yes please. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 12:27 PM, 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? Hmm. At the moment, I don't think there is. But, a

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/14/2016 12:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: This work is definitely something that should be done before anything else. Need a patch or are you on it? I'm on it.. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 12/09/2016 10:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> wrote: >> >>> Couple of things I should write down before I forget: >>> >>> 1. It's a bit

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > 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

pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/09/2016 10:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas 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

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> A few couple more things that caught my eye while hacking on this: Looking at what we have now, in the branch... >> * Use

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > A few couple more things that caught my eye while hacking on this: > > 1. We don't use SASLPrep to scrub username's and passwords. That's by > choice, for usernames, because historically in PostgreSQL usernames can be

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 12 December 2016 at 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > * Throw an error if an "authorization identity" is given. ATM, we just > ignore it, but seems better to reject the attempt than do something that > might not be what the client expects. Yeah. That might be an opportunity

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

A few couple more things that caught my eye while hacking on this: 1. We don't use SASLPrep to scrub username's and passwords. That's by choice, for usernames, because historically in PostgreSQL usernames can be stored in any encoding, but SASLPrep assumes UTF-8. We dodge that by passing an

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 12/09/2016 01:10 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:51:45AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 12/09/2016 05:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: One thing is: when do we look up at pg_authid? After receiving the first message from client or before beginning the exchange? As

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:51:45AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 12/09/2016 05:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > One thing is: when do we look up at pg_authid? After receiving the > > first message from client or before beginning the exchange? As the > > first message from client has

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 12/09/2016 05:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: One thing is: when do we look up at pg_authid? After receiving the first message from client or before beginning the exchange? As the first message from client has the user name, it would make sense to do the lookup after receiving it, but from PG

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas 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

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

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

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 12/09/2016 05:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Actually, we don't give away that information currently. If you try to log in with

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> On 12/08/2016 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Hmmm. How do we handle the case where the user name does not match >>> then? The

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 12/08/2016 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hmmm. How do we handle the case where the user name does not match >> then? The spec gives an error message e= specifically for this case. > > Hmm, interesting. I wonder

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 12/08/2016 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Attached those here, as add-on patches to your latest patch set. Thanks for looking at it! I'll continue reviewing, but a couple of things caught my eye that you may

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Attached those here, as add-on patches to your latest patch set. Thanks for looking at it! > I'll continue reviewing, but a couple of things caught my eye that you may > want > to jump on, in the meanwhile: > > On

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 12/07/2016 08:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: Nothing more will likely happen in this CF, so I have moved it to 2017-01 with the same status of "Needs Review". Attached is a new set of patches using the new

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> So, the problem isn't Darwin-specific. I experimented with this on >> Linux and found Linux does the same thing with

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > So, the problem isn't Darwin-specific. I experimented with this on > Linux and found Linux does the same thing with libpgcommon_srv.a that > macOS does: a file in the archive that is totally unused is omitted > from the

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> In the current set of patches, the sha2 functions would not get used >> until the main patch for SCRAM gets committed so

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > In the current set of patches, the sha2 functions would not get used > until the main patch for SCRAM gets committed so that's a couple of > steps and many months ahead.. And --as-needed/--no-as-needed are not >

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > So, it seems that the linker is willing to drop archive members if the > entire .o file is used, but not individual symbols. That explains why > Michael thinks we need to do something special here, because with his >

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > With -Wl,--as-neeeded the linker will dismiss unused symbols found in a > static library. Maybe that's the difference? The man page --as-needed says that --as-needed modifies the behavior of dynamic libraries, not static

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Hi, On 2016-11-16 19:29:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> diff --git a/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile b/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile >

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> diff --git a/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile b/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile >> index 805db76..ddb0183 100644 >> ---

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > diff --git a/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile b/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile > index 805db76..ddb0183 100644 > --- a/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile > +++ b/contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > # contrib/pgcrypto/Makefile > >

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Yeah, I don't see a point to that. > > OK, by doing so here is what I have. The patch generated by > format-patch, as well as diffs generated by git diff -M are reduced > and the patch gets half in size. They

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> How do you plug in that with OpenSSL? Are

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> How do you plug in that with OpenSSL? Are you suggesting to use a set >> of undef definitions in the new header in the same way as

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > How do you plug in that with OpenSSL? Are you suggesting to use a set > of undef definitions in the new header in the same way as pgcrypto is > doing, which is rather ugly? Because that's what the deal is about

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> The organization of these patches makes sense to me. >> >> On 10/20/16 1:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> - 0001, moving

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The organization of these patches makes sense to me. > > On 10/20/16 1:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> - 0001, moving all the SHA2 functions to src/common/ and introducing a >> PG-like interface. No

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:23:11 +0900 Michael Paquier wrote: > > (This is about patch 0007, not 0001) > Thanks, you are right. That's not good as-is. So this basically means > that the characters here should be from 32 to 127 included. Really, most important is to

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Victor Wagner wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:35:27 +0900 > Michael Paquier wrote: > > Hi >> Attached is a rebased patch set for SCRAM, with the following things: >> - 0001, moving all the SHA2 functions to

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:35:27 +0900 Michael Paquier wrote: Hi > Attached is a rebased patch set for SCRAM, with the following things: > - 0001, moving all the SHA2 functions to src/common/ and introducing a > PG-like interface. No actual changes here. It seems, that

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The organization of these patches makes sense to me. > > On 10/20/16 1:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> - 0001, moving all the SHA2 functions to src/common/ and introducing a >> PG-like interface. No

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

The organization of these patches makes sense to me. On 10/20/16 1:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > - 0001, moving all the SHA2 functions to src/common/ and introducing a > PG-like interface. No actual changes here. That's probably alright, although the patch contains a lot more changes than I

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 10/17/2016 12:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 10/17/2016 12:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: You removed the part of pgcrypto in charge of randomness, nice move. I was wondering about how to do with the perfc and the unix_std at some point, and ripping them off as you did is fine for me.

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 10/17/2016 12:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: You removed the part of pgcrypto in charge of randomness, nice move. I was wondering about how to do with the perfc and the unix_std at some point, and ripping them off as you did is fine for me. Yeah. I didn't understand the need for the perfc

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 10/15/2016 04:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> >>> * Now that we don't call random() in postmaster anymore, is there any >>> point >>> in calling srandom() there (i.e. where the above incorrect comment was)? >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 10/15/2016 04:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: * Now that we don't call random() in postmaster anymore, is there any point in calling srandom() there (i.e. where the above incorrect comment was)? Should we remove it? random() might be used by pre-loaded extensions, though. (Hopefully not for

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 10/12/2016 11:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > * Changed pg_strong_random() to return false on error, and let the callers > handle errors. That's more error-prone than throwing an error in the > function itself, as

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 10/14/2016 03:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I spent some time whacking that around: Sigh, forgot attachment. Here you go. - Heikki >From 4b3000df3dc71ad41018a6606c92bc4a0adeb8f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Heikki Linnakangas Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 10/12/2016 11:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: And so we are back on that, with a new set: Great! I'm looking at this first one for now: - 0001, introducing pg_strong_random() in src/port/ to have the backend portion of SCRAM use it instead of random(). This patch is from Magnus who has

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Our b64_encode routine does use whitespace, so we can't use it as is for >> SCRAM. As the patch stands, we might never output anything long enough to >> create linefeeds, but let's be tidy. The base64

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Heikki, Michael, Magnus, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > The libpq-side is not. Just calling random() won't do. We haven't needed for > > random numbers in libpq before, but now we do. Is the

  1   2   >