Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date: 2001-08-16 16:49:30
Message-ID: 10221.997980570@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Salt is currently defined as char[2]. Should I encode the rand() as
> char[4] and send that, or skip null and still encode it as char[4].

There's no need to avoid nulls here, AFAICS. Making the salt a
fixed-length binary string seems like the best bet.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-16 16:56:37 Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-16 16:37:32 Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords