Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jim Mercer <jim(at)reptiles(dot)org>, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date: 2001-06-26 15:31:36
Message-ID: 200106261531.f5QFVaS09953@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> In the long run, though, we want to drop crypt(3) usage entirely.
> It's just too much of a pain in the neck to depend on the C library's
> crypt(), for two reasons:
> 
> 1. It's not in libc on all systems, leading to constant problems when
> linking clients, particularly with shared libraries that have to have
> a dependency on another shared library because of this.  (Search the
> archives for problems about "can't find crypt".  There are many such
> reports.)
> 
> 2. crypt() isn't guaranteed compatible across platforms, meaning that
> your clients may be unable to log in anyway.  See for example
> http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=57516
> 
> Using our own MD5 (or whatever) code will avoid these problems.

Agreed.  If people say they want to keep crypt for /etc/passwd, we can. 
If they don't say they want it, we can go with only MD5.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-26 15:36:28
Subject: Re: 7.2 items
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-26 15:27:51
Subject: Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group