On 5/23/19 10:30 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> > For now I have left in the password based method to be scram-sha-256 as
>> > I am optimistic about the support across client drivers[1] (and FWIW I
>> > have an implementation for crystal-pg ~60% done).
>>
>> > However, this probably means we would need to set the default password
>> > encryption guc to "scram-sha-256" which we're not ready to do yet, so it
>> > may be moot to leave it in.
>>
>> > So, thinking out loud about that, we should probably use "md5" and once
>> > we decide to make the encryption method "scram-sha-256" by default, then
>> > we update the recommendation?
>>
>> Meh. If we're going to break things, let's break them. Set it to
>> scram by default and let people who need to cope with old clients
>> change the default. I'm tired of explaining that MD5 isn't actually
>> insecure in our usage ...
>
> +many.
many++
Are we doing this for pg12? In any case, I would think we better loudly
point out this change somewhere.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development