Re: Bad error message on valuntil
От | Rodrigo Gonzalez |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bad error message on valuntil |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130607171247.0a496f01@rjgonzale-laptop обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bad error message on valuntil ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:07:21 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > On 06/07/2013 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > >> On 06/07/2013 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I think it's intentional that we don't tell the *client* that > >>> level of detail. > > > >> Why? That seems rather silly. > > > > The general policy on authentication failure reports is that we > > don't tell the client anything it doesn't know already about what > > the auth method is. We can log additional info into the postmaster > > log if it seems useful to do so, but the more you tell a client, > > the more you risk undesirable info leakage to a bad guy. As an > > example here, reporting the valuntil condition would be acking to > > an attacker that he had the right password. > > So security by obscurity? Alright, without getting into that argument > how about we change the error message to: > > FATAL: Authentication failed: Check server log for specifics > > And then we make sure we log proper info? +1
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: