| 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: | 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 13:56:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200108161356.f7GDuOs16714@candle.pha.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:
> > OK, patch attached. Pretty nifty. Try MD5 first, and if it fails, try
> > crypt.
>
> What???
>
> Where did *that* idea come from? If I'm using the new auth method
> because I don't think the old one is secure, I sure as heck don't want
> an old (or deliberately-broken) client to cause a fallback to a less
> secure method.
Just a reminder. What I think it insecure is the size of our salt.
With only 3300 possible salts, it doesn't take long to playback a
duplicate. That is true of MD5 and crypt.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-16 14:03:57 | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-16 13:43:17 | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |