Re: [HACKERS] Changing references of password encryption to hashing

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:16 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> We pass a completely cleartext password to the server from the client.
> Yes, we might encrypt it on the way with TLS, but even SSH realized how
> terrible that is long, long ago and strongly discourages it these days.
>
> The problem with ldap as an auth method is that a single compromised PG
> server in an AD/ldap environment can collect up those username+password
> credentials and gain access to those users *domain* level access.  The
> CFO logging into a PG server with LDAP auth is giving up their complete
> access credentials to the entire AD domain.  That's terrible.

Good grief. I really think you need to reassess your approach to this
whole area. It is massively unhelpful to be so prescriptive about what
people are, or are not, allowed to be comfortable with from a security
perspective. And it seems like you're so convinced that you're right
that you're completely closed off to anyone else's input, so there's
not even any point in arguing.

In the reality I inhabit, many people could *massively* improve their
security by switching to LDAP from the really lame things that they're
doing right now. They would be FAR better off. It would not even be
close. I pretty much know that you aren't going to believe that and
are going to offer reasons why it isn't and can't possibly be true, or
else just say that those people are so hopeless that we shouldn't even
care about them. All I can say is that you're worrying about security
problems that are so minute as to be invisible compared to what I see.

> I disagree- it's a known pass-the-hash vulnerability and frankly every
> release we do with it still existing is deserving of an immediate CVE
> (I've been asked off-list why we don't do this, in fact).

I agree that the issues with MD5 are way worse than the ones with
LDAP, but you're arguing here, as you did with exclusive backup mode,
that the existence of options that are bad, or that you consider to be
bad, is a problem even if nothing whatever compels people to use them.

I think that is, to borrow a phrase from Tom, arrant nonsense. Sure,
MD5 authentication has a pass-the-hash vulnerability, and that sucks.

So let's say we remove it. Then presumably we should also remove
password authentication, which has an even easier-to-exploit
vulnerability, and trust, which is easier to exploit still. And
presumably it would be right to do all of that even if SCRAM
authentication had never been implemented, so then we'd have no
support for any form of password authentication at all. And we'd
remove LDAP, too, so the most obvious way of doing password
authentication without putting the passwords in the database would
also not exist any more. Maybe we should nuke a few more too --- is
PAM any better than LDAP in this regard? Pretty soon you end up in a
world where it's either impossible to log into the database at all, or
everybody's got to use, I don't know, Kerberos and SSL certificates,
or something.

But what will happen in practice is that either users will just give
up on PostgreSQL because it refuses to let them do what they want to
do, or those SSL certificates will end up unencrypted in a
world-writable file somewhere, or get emailed around to everyone in
the group, or maybe checked into the application's git repository that
is public to the whole company behind the firewall. There won't be a
passphrase on the certificate, or it will be set to 'secret123', or
whatever. The expiration date will be set to the furthest date in the
future that the software supports, or the user won't realize they need
to worry about that and the application will suddenly go down when the
certificate expires.

You can't make people do the right thing by removing their options.
You can only make them work a little harder to get around the security
control that you tried to impose by fiat, and in the process, make
them frustrated. I imagine that the reason you didn't suggest removing
'trust' is that you admit the existence of environments where it's
safe enough -- someone working with a local PG on a loopback port on a
single-user machine, maybe a connection from a certain IP where that
IP and the DB are both behind a firewall, or a burner system that
someone just literally doesn't care about. But the "safe enough"
argument applies to everything else, too. It's the job of users to
adequately secure their systems against external attack, and it's our
job to help them, not to enforce our own views on them. It is
absolutely fine to tell users, in a thoughtful and balanced way, what
the advantages and disadvantages of different choices are. But
removing their choices is high-handed and ineffective.