Re: [SOLVED] Re: pgAdmin 4 + python wheel + kerberos - Mailing list pgadmin-support
From | Dave Page |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [SOLVED] Re: pgAdmin 4 + python wheel + kerberos |
Date | |
Msg-id | CA+OCxox-gbuH0XwTuLbK-rjnqTBF5TmLDEGVuVxCgO48j-FLaQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [SOLVED] Re: pgAdmin 4 + python wheel + kerberos (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Responses |
Re: [SOLVED] Re: pgAdmin 4 + python wheel + kerberos
|
List | pgadmin-support |
Hi
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:52 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Greetings,
* Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:20 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > Any chance you could share that patch..? Considering that pgAdmin4 has,
> > sadly, decided to go the (broken) route of adding LDAP basic-user auth,
>
> Less secure != broken, unless you know something I don't (and bear in mind
> I've seen your talk on the subject :-p )
You could make the same distinction and argument when talking about
NTLM, LANMAN, or even hash algorithms like MD5. There's good reasons
for why Microsoft moved away from NTLM and why all of their applications
use Kerberos and explicitly not LDAP-simple-bind for authentication.
I'm not saying it's the best option or anything close, simply that it's not broken in the dictionary sense of the word.
> LDAP was added as the first option whilst adding support for pluggable
> authentication mechanisms, partly because it's the one we're most
> familiar with, and partly because it's by far the most common option
> requested by users (and yes, whilst like you I would love to be able to
> tell them all to just use Kerberos, we both know that's not realistic).
The most requested, in my experience at least, isn't LDAP- it's Active
Directory integration, with an expectation that it'll work in the same,
secure, way that SQL Server integrates into AD. That's not what any of
this is though- and we see people being confused and making incorrect
assumptions about what the LDAP support in PG is already, and I'm sure
they'll also be confused with pgAdmin4.
This is something that comes up too, and not even that long ago-
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/16079-29e9c038e1463751%40postgresql.org
Maybe that person is confused (and certainly some others are), but I don't see anything in that particular message to indicate they're using AD. For all I can see they're using OpenLDAP or 389-ds.
Regardless; it's clearly not feasible for us to persuade every user of non-AD LDAP to stop doing so.
The poster even claims that with ldap auth: "But the user credentials
will not be sent to Postgresql server to authenticate", which is clearly
wrong.
Yeah, definitely.
> > it'd really be good to, out of the box, make it support Kerberos-based
> > auth, even with the limitations you've described here.
>
> We already have a Kerberos module on our plan to follow on from the LDAP
> one. Following that we plan to also add support for Kerberos authentication
> to the database servers themselves.
Glad to hear it, I'd be happy to help with Kerberos auth support.
Sounds like it's actually rather easy to implement it, based on Peter's
comments (which isn't surprising, really, it's actually *not* very hard
to enable for a web app thanks to modules like mod_auth_kerb- probably a
great deal less code than the LDAP auth needed, in fact).
Our problem here is likely to be that we can't rely on mod_auth_krb. In a container we're running under Gunicorn for example (perhaps with a reverse proxy or Traefik in a different container), and users will often host under Nginx rather than Apache.
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pgadmin-support by date: