Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 16:33:52
Message-ID: 200106261633.f5QGXqM16901@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > > > > For the same reason I don't see any value in the idea of adding
> > > > > crypt-based double encryption to clients. We don't really want to
> > > > > support that over the long run, so why put effort into it?
> > > >
> > > > The only reason to add double-crypt is so we can continue to use
> > > > /etc/passwd entries on systems that use crypt() in /etc/passwd.
> > >
> > > Haven't many systems (at least Linux and FreeBSD) switched from this
> > > to other algorithms as default, like MD5? (and usually found in /etc/shadow)
> >
> > Yes, most BSD's are MD5. I wasn't sure about Linux.
>
> Most recent (3-4 years and newer) use PAM, which can use MD5 as an
> underlying module.

But what is the default? crypt or 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= 2001-06-26 16:43:08 Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Previous Message Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= 2001-06-26 16:33:00 Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords