Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by josephcsible 1589 days ago
> transmitting the password, rather than some form of token, means that this approach is exactly as insecure as HTTP basic auth over TLS, and how many serious enterprise apps use that?

Isn't that also exactly as insecure as submitting an HTML form with <input type="password"> is? And I can't think of any enterprise apps that don't use either HTTP basic auth or that over TLS. Which ones are you thinking of?
1 comments
maxtardiveau2 1589 days ago
> Isn't that also exactly as insecure as submitting an HTML form with <input type="password"> is?

Absolutely, but I am arguing that this is not worthy of an enterprise system like SQL Server. This is especially true for a back-end system, because at least in a web browser, you'd get a warning if the certificate cannot be verified (and the connection is therefore vulnerable).

> Which ones are you thinking of?

Most of the enterprise apps I have worked with use something like OAuth or SAML. For sure, many have an option to use basic auth, but that's only used for testing and development, and would be a red flag in any security audit.

I'll just quote Microsoft's documentation <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/se...>:

  Disadvantages of SQL Server Authentication

  The encrypted SQL Server Authentication login password, must be passed over the network at the time of the connection.
It's good that they acknowledge it, but it would be a lot better if they did something about it.
link
josephcsible 1589 days ago
> Most of the enterprise apps I have worked with use something like OAuth or SAML.

If an app is a SAML SP or an OAuth client, then it's not really doing authentication itself, but rather delegating it to another system. When you go to log in to the SAML IdP or the OAuth authorization server, where the authentication actually happens, don't they let you use HTTP basic authentication or <input type="password">?

link
maxtardiveau2 1588 days ago
You're right, I should not have gone on that tangent.

To get back to the main point, though, don't you think that the fact that Microsoft includes a disclaimer (kinda) in their docs lends some credence to the idea that they're not really proud of this?

link
josephcsible 1588 days ago
Like I said, I agree things could be better. I just don't think things are currently quite as bad as your original article makes them sound, and I also think it's unfair to single out SQL Server as if it were worse than normal, when it's exactly the same as basically everything else today.
link
maxtardiveau2 1588 days ago
That's a reasonable position, and I think a good conclusion to a constructive debate.

Whether it's unfair to single out SQL Server -- I don't think it is. SQL Server is one of the foundations of modern IT infrastructure, and it should be held to the highest standard. This is clearly a chink in the armor, and Microsoft seems to be aware of it.

Thanks to your pushback, I have refined my argument and will publish a significantly revised version of it on SQL Server Central (https://www.sqlservercentral.com/) on March 2. There is a preview at https://www.galliumdata.com/articles/can-we-please-stop-send... in case you're curious.

I respect your expertise, and I appreciate your civility. Thank you.

link