| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
| Date: | 2001-08-16 15:45:45 |
| Message-ID: | 200108161545.f7GFjj326562@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > OK, I see how I can do that. I thought the salt was part of the startup
> > packet but I see now that it is send during the authentication request.
> > I can make it longer, probably 6 characters:
> >
> > > 62^6
> > 56800235584
>
> Why not take all 255 characters?
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].
--
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 | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-08-16 15:47:32 | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-08-16 15:38:36 | Re: patch for 60 seconds bug |