On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> You've twice asserted it's a reduction without providing any arguments
>> to back that up.
>
> You quoted two good arguments why it's insecure in your original
> message, neither of which your proposed GUC does anything to protect
> against;
I see one, and I proposed masking passwords in any relevant queries
before they were written to the stats or logs to mitigate that.
> and you also admitted that there might be other leakage paths
> we haven't thought of. That seems to me to be more than sufficient
> reason to not encourage people to go back to passing unencrypted
> passwords around.
Yes. Which is why I asked your opinion as there's a far greater chance
you would know of any such paths than I, *and* whether they represent
a greater risk than the complete lack of control over the
effectiveness of users passwords that we currently have.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
