postgresql/src/backend/libpq/crypt.c

292 lines
7.6 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* crypt.c
* Functions for dealing with encrypted passwords stored in
* pg_authid.rolpassword.
*
2017-01-03 19:48:53 +01:00
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
2001-11-01 19:10:48 +01:00
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
2010-09-20 22:08:53 +02:00
* src/backend/libpq/crypt.c
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
2001-11-01 19:10:48 +01:00
#include "postgres.h"
#include <unistd.h>
#ifdef HAVE_CRYPT_H
#include <crypt.h>
#endif
#include "catalog/pg_authid.h"
#include "common/md5.h"
1999-07-16 07:00:38 +02:00
#include "libpq/crypt.h"
Support SCRAM-SHA-256 authentication (RFC 5802 and 7677). This introduces a new generic SASL authentication method, similar to the GSS and SSPI methods. The server first tells the client which SASL authentication mechanism to use, and then the mechanism-specific SASL messages are exchanged in AuthenticationSASLcontinue and PasswordMessage messages. Only SCRAM-SHA-256 is supported at the moment, but this allows adding more SASL mechanisms in the future, without changing the overall protocol. Support for channel binding, aka SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS is left for later. The SASLPrep algorithm, for pre-processing the password, is not yet implemented. That could cause trouble, if you use a password with non-ASCII characters, and a client library that does implement SASLprep. That will hopefully be added later. Authorization identities, as specified in the SCRAM-SHA-256 specification, are ignored. SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION provides more or less the same functionality, anyway. If a user doesn't exist, perform a "mock" authentication, by constructing an authentic-looking challenge on the fly. The challenge is derived from a new system-wide random value, "mock authentication nonce", which is created at initdb, and stored in the control file. We go through these motions, in order to not give away the information on whether the user exists, to unauthenticated users. Bumps PG_CONTROL_VERSION, because of the new field in control file. Patch by Michael Paquier and Heikki Linnakangas, reviewed at different stages by Robert Haas, Stephen Frost, David Steele, Aleksander Alekseev, and many others. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRbR3GmFYdedCAhzukfKrgBLTLtMvENOmPrVWREsZkF8g%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSMXU35g%3DW9X74HVeQp0uvgJxvYOuA4A-A3M%2B0wfEBv-w%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55192AFE.6080106@iki.fi
2017-03-07 13:25:40 +01:00
#include "libpq/scram.h"
#include "miscadmin.h"
#include "utils/builtins.h"
#include "utils/syscache.h"
#include "utils/timestamp.h"
/*
* Fetch stored password for a user, for authentication.
*
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
* On error, returns NULL, and stores a palloc'd string describing the reason,
* for the postmaster log, in *logdetail. The error reason should *not* be
* sent to the client, to avoid giving away user information!
*/
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
char *
get_role_password(const char *role, char **logdetail)
{
TimestampTz vuntil = 0;
HeapTuple roleTup;
Datum datum;
bool isnull;
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
char *shadow_pass;
/* Get role info from pg_authid */
roleTup = SearchSysCache1(AUTHNAME, PointerGetDatum(role));
if (!HeapTupleIsValid(roleTup))
{
*logdetail = psprintf(_("Role \"%s\" does not exist."),
role);
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
return NULL; /* no such user */
}
datum = SysCacheGetAttr(AUTHNAME, roleTup,
Anum_pg_authid_rolpassword, &isnull);
if (isnull)
{
ReleaseSysCache(roleTup);
*logdetail = psprintf(_("User \"%s\" has no password assigned."),
role);
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
return NULL; /* user has no password */
}
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
shadow_pass = TextDatumGetCString(datum);
datum = SysCacheGetAttr(AUTHNAME, roleTup,
Anum_pg_authid_rolvaliduntil, &isnull);
if (!isnull)
vuntil = DatumGetTimestampTz(datum);
2002-09-04 22:31:48 +02:00
ReleaseSysCache(roleTup);
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
if (*shadow_pass == '\0')
{
*logdetail = psprintf(_("User \"%s\" has an empty password."),
role);
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
pfree(shadow_pass);
return NULL; /* empty password */
}
/*
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
* Password OK, but check to be sure we are not past rolvaliduntil
*/
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
if (!isnull && vuntil < GetCurrentTimestamp())
2001-08-17 04:59:20 +02:00
{
*logdetail = psprintf(_("User \"%s\" has an expired password."),
role);
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
return NULL;
}
Allow SCRAM authentication, when pg_hba.conf says 'md5'. If a user has a SCRAM verifier in pg_authid.rolpassword, there's no reason we cannot attempt to perform SCRAM authentication instead of MD5. The worst that can happen is that the client doesn't support SCRAM, and the authentication will fail. But previously, it would fail for sure, because we would not even try. SCRAM is strictly more secure than MD5, so there's no harm in trying it. This allows for a more graceful transition from MD5 passwords to SCRAM, as user passwords can be changed to SCRAM verifiers incrementally, without changing pg_hba.conf. Refactor the code in auth.c to support that better. Notably, we now have to look up the user's pg_authid entry before sending the password challenge, also when performing MD5 authentication. Also simplify the concept of a "doomed" authentication. Previously, if a user had a password, but it had expired, we still performed SCRAM authentication (but always returned error at the end) using the salt and iteration count from the expired password. Now we construct a fake salt, like we do when the user doesn't have a password or doesn't exist at all. That simplifies get_role_password(), and we can don't need to distinguish the "user has expired password", and "user does not exist" cases in auth.c. On second thoughts, also rename uaSASL to uaSCRAM. It refers to the mechanism specified in pg_hba.conf, and while we use SASL for SCRAM authentication at the protocol level, the mechanism should be called SCRAM, not SASL. As a comparison, we have uaLDAP, even though it looks like the plain 'password' authentication at the protocol level. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2017-03-24 12:32:21 +01:00
return shadow_pass;
}
/*
* What kind of a password verifier is 'shadow_pass'?
*/
PasswordType
get_password_type(const char *shadow_pass)
{
if (strncmp(shadow_pass, "md5", 3) == 0 && strlen(shadow_pass) == MD5_PASSWD_LEN)
return PASSWORD_TYPE_MD5;
if (strncmp(shadow_pass, "SCRAM-SHA-256$", strlen("SCRAM-SHA-256$")) == 0)
return PASSWORD_TYPE_SCRAM_SHA_256;
return PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT;
}
/*
* Given a user-supplied password, convert it into a verifier of
* 'target_type' kind.
*
* If the password is already in encrypted form, we cannot reverse the
* hash, so it is stored as it is regardless of the requested type.
*/
char *
encrypt_password(PasswordType target_type, const char *role,
const char *password)
{
PasswordType guessed_type = get_password_type(password);
char *encrypted_password;
if (guessed_type != PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT)
{
/*
* Cannot convert an already-encrypted password from one
* format to another, so return it as it is.
*/
return pstrdup(password);
}
switch (target_type)
{
case PASSWORD_TYPE_MD5:
encrypted_password = palloc(MD5_PASSWD_LEN + 1);
if (!pg_md5_encrypt(password, role, strlen(role),
encrypted_password))
elog(ERROR, "password encryption failed");
return encrypted_password;
Support SCRAM-SHA-256 authentication (RFC 5802 and 7677). This introduces a new generic SASL authentication method, similar to the GSS and SSPI methods. The server first tells the client which SASL authentication mechanism to use, and then the mechanism-specific SASL messages are exchanged in AuthenticationSASLcontinue and PasswordMessage messages. Only SCRAM-SHA-256 is supported at the moment, but this allows adding more SASL mechanisms in the future, without changing the overall protocol. Support for channel binding, aka SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS is left for later. The SASLPrep algorithm, for pre-processing the password, is not yet implemented. That could cause trouble, if you use a password with non-ASCII characters, and a client library that does implement SASLprep. That will hopefully be added later. Authorization identities, as specified in the SCRAM-SHA-256 specification, are ignored. SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION provides more or less the same functionality, anyway. If a user doesn't exist, perform a "mock" authentication, by constructing an authentic-looking challenge on the fly. The challenge is derived from a new system-wide random value, "mock authentication nonce", which is created at initdb, and stored in the control file. We go through these motions, in order to not give away the information on whether the user exists, to unauthenticated users. Bumps PG_CONTROL_VERSION, because of the new field in control file. Patch by Michael Paquier and Heikki Linnakangas, reviewed at different stages by Robert Haas, Stephen Frost, David Steele, Aleksander Alekseev, and many others. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRbR3GmFYdedCAhzukfKrgBLTLtMvENOmPrVWREsZkF8g%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSMXU35g%3DW9X74HVeQp0uvgJxvYOuA4A-A3M%2B0wfEBv-w%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55192AFE.6080106@iki.fi
2017-03-07 13:25:40 +01:00
case PASSWORD_TYPE_SCRAM_SHA_256:
return pg_be_scram_build_verifier(password);
Support SCRAM-SHA-256 authentication (RFC 5802 and 7677). This introduces a new generic SASL authentication method, similar to the GSS and SSPI methods. The server first tells the client which SASL authentication mechanism to use, and then the mechanism-specific SASL messages are exchanged in AuthenticationSASLcontinue and PasswordMessage messages. Only SCRAM-SHA-256 is supported at the moment, but this allows adding more SASL mechanisms in the future, without changing the overall protocol. Support for channel binding, aka SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS is left for later. The SASLPrep algorithm, for pre-processing the password, is not yet implemented. That could cause trouble, if you use a password with non-ASCII characters, and a client library that does implement SASLprep. That will hopefully be added later. Authorization identities, as specified in the SCRAM-SHA-256 specification, are ignored. SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION provides more or less the same functionality, anyway. If a user doesn't exist, perform a "mock" authentication, by constructing an authentic-looking challenge on the fly. The challenge is derived from a new system-wide random value, "mock authentication nonce", which is created at initdb, and stored in the control file. We go through these motions, in order to not give away the information on whether the user exists, to unauthenticated users. Bumps PG_CONTROL_VERSION, because of the new field in control file. Patch by Michael Paquier and Heikki Linnakangas, reviewed at different stages by Robert Haas, Stephen Frost, David Steele, Aleksander Alekseev, and many others. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRbR3GmFYdedCAhzukfKrgBLTLtMvENOmPrVWREsZkF8g%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSMXU35g%3DW9X74HVeQp0uvgJxvYOuA4A-A3M%2B0wfEBv-w%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55192AFE.6080106@iki.fi
2017-03-07 13:25:40 +01:00
case PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT:
elog(ERROR, "cannot encrypt password with 'plaintext'");
}
/*
* This shouldn't happen, because the above switch statements should
* handle every combination of source and target password types.
*/
elog(ERROR, "cannot encrypt password to requested type");
Support SCRAM-SHA-256 authentication (RFC 5802 and 7677). This introduces a new generic SASL authentication method, similar to the GSS and SSPI methods. The server first tells the client which SASL authentication mechanism to use, and then the mechanism-specific SASL messages are exchanged in AuthenticationSASLcontinue and PasswordMessage messages. Only SCRAM-SHA-256 is supported at the moment, but this allows adding more SASL mechanisms in the future, without changing the overall protocol. Support for channel binding, aka SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS is left for later. The SASLPrep algorithm, for pre-processing the password, is not yet implemented. That could cause trouble, if you use a password with non-ASCII characters, and a client library that does implement SASLprep. That will hopefully be added later. Authorization identities, as specified in the SCRAM-SHA-256 specification, are ignored. SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION provides more or less the same functionality, anyway. If a user doesn't exist, perform a "mock" authentication, by constructing an authentic-looking challenge on the fly. The challenge is derived from a new system-wide random value, "mock authentication nonce", which is created at initdb, and stored in the control file. We go through these motions, in order to not give away the information on whether the user exists, to unauthenticated users. Bumps PG_CONTROL_VERSION, because of the new field in control file. Patch by Michael Paquier and Heikki Linnakangas, reviewed at different stages by Robert Haas, Stephen Frost, David Steele, Aleksander Alekseev, and many others. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRbR3GmFYdedCAhzukfKrgBLTLtMvENOmPrVWREsZkF8g%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSMXU35g%3DW9X74HVeQp0uvgJxvYOuA4A-A3M%2B0wfEBv-w%40mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55192AFE.6080106@iki.fi
2017-03-07 13:25:40 +01:00
return NULL; /* keep compiler quiet */
}
/*
* Check MD5 authentication response, and return STATUS_OK or STATUS_ERROR.
*
* 'shadow_pass' is the user's correct password or password hash, as stored
* in pg_authid.rolpassword.
* 'client_pass' is the response given by the remote user to the MD5 challenge.
* 'md5_salt' is the salt used in the MD5 authentication challenge.
*
* In the error case, optionally store a palloc'd string at *logdetail
* that will be sent to the postmaster log (but not the client).
*/
int
md5_crypt_verify(const char *role, const char *shadow_pass,
const char *client_pass,
const char *md5_salt, int md5_salt_len,
char **logdetail)
{
int retval;
char crypt_pwd[MD5_PASSWD_LEN + 1];
Assert(md5_salt_len > 0);
if (get_password_type(shadow_pass) != PASSWORD_TYPE_MD5)
{
/* incompatible password hash format. */
*logdetail = psprintf(_("User \"%s\" has a password that cannot be used with MD5 authentication."),
role);
return STATUS_ERROR;
}
/*
* Compute the correct answer for the MD5 challenge.
*
* We do not bother setting logdetail for any pg_md5_encrypt failure
* below: the only possible error is out-of-memory, which is unlikely, and
* if it did happen adding a psprintf call would only make things worse.
*/
/* stored password already encrypted, only do salt */
if (!pg_md5_encrypt(shadow_pass + strlen("md5"),
md5_salt, md5_salt_len,
crypt_pwd))
{
return STATUS_ERROR;
}
if (strcmp(client_pass, crypt_pwd) == 0)
retval = STATUS_OK;
else
{
*logdetail = psprintf(_("Password does not match for user \"%s\"."),
role);
retval = STATUS_ERROR;
}
return retval;
}
/*
* Check given password for given user, and return STATUS_OK or STATUS_ERROR.
*
* 'shadow_pass' is the user's correct password hash, as stored in
* pg_authid.rolpassword.
* 'client_pass' is the password given by the remote user.
*
* In the error case, optionally store a palloc'd string at *logdetail
* that will be sent to the postmaster log (but not the client).
*/
int
plain_crypt_verify(const char *role, const char *shadow_pass,
const char *client_pass,
char **logdetail)
{
char crypt_client_pass[MD5_PASSWD_LEN + 1];
/*
* Client sent password in plaintext. If we have an MD5 hash stored, hash
* the password the client sent, and compare the hashes. Otherwise
* compare the plaintext passwords directly.
*/
switch (get_password_type(shadow_pass))
{
case PASSWORD_TYPE_SCRAM_SHA_256:
if (scram_verify_plain_password(role,
client_pass,
shadow_pass))
{
return STATUS_OK;
}
else
{
*logdetail = psprintf(_("Password does not match for user \"%s\"."),
role);
return STATUS_ERROR;
}
break;
case PASSWORD_TYPE_MD5:
if (!pg_md5_encrypt(client_pass,
role,
strlen(role),
crypt_client_pass))
{
/*
* We do not bother setting logdetail for pg_md5_encrypt
* failure: the only possible error is out-of-memory, which is
* unlikely, and if it did happen adding a psprintf call would
* only make things worse.
*/
return STATUS_ERROR;
}
if (strcmp(crypt_client_pass, shadow_pass) == 0)
return STATUS_OK;
else
{
*logdetail = psprintf(_("Password does not match for user \"%s\"."),
role);
return STATUS_ERROR;
}
break;
case PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT:
/*
* We never store passwords in plaintext, so this shouldn't
* happen.
*/
break;
}
/*
* This shouldn't happen. Plain "password" authentication is possible
* with any kind of stored password hash.
*/
*logdetail = psprintf(_("Password of user \"%s\" is in unrecognized format."),
role);
return STATUS_ERROR;
}