From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1EF994BE5 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:26:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DBAE315306 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:26:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:26:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2BA9644EB6 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:26:37 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:26:36 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Stefan Sterz" To: "Proxmox Backup Server development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-57-g782a17dfb056 References: <20240215152001.269490-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <20240215152001.269490-12-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <240bb08e-9297-41d6-a0ac-c2e8ef54bbae@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <240bb08e-9297-41d6-a0ac-c2e8ef54bbae@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.078 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 11/12] auth/manager: add manager command to upgrade hashes X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:26:38 -0000 On Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 8:06 PM CET, Max Carrara wrote: > On 2/15/24 16:20, Stefan Sterz wrote: -- >8 snip 8< -- > > --- > > note that once an admin has upgraded a hash, downgrading > > proxmox-backup-server will break logging in for all users with upgraded > > passwords. an admin would then need to manually reset the password via > > `proxmox-backup-manager user update --password `. > > I think this is why we should implement dealing with all hashes we desire > before the next major release, so that this doesn't happen. I can see thi= s > potentially cause quite a stir for some users. > > If we're able to differ between hash types (I think you mentioned we can) > then we should represent the variants we may use *now* and prefer using > the upgraded hash with the next major release. Or in other words, IMO we > should remain forward compatible, at least (and at most) for one major > version bump. > as i'd retract this patch too (see my response to patch 07), i think this is a non-issue for now. but yeah, dealing with this in a cleaner manner might make sense. the problem here is that we'd need the newer version of the verify function in the version that you want to downgrade to (note that we do not support downgrades). you'd get that with the patch to `proxmox-sys` and a bumped dependency in pbs automatically though, so this is kind of seperate to this patch. -- >8 snip 8< ---