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

Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3
Date: 2008-04-02 03:06:26
Message-ID: 200804020306.m3236QQ00410@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
There isn't enough agreement to move some things from pgcrypto to the
core so this thread is being removed from the patch queue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> I am not thrilled about moving _some_ of pgcrypto into the backend ---
> pgcrypto right now seems well designed and if we pull part of it out it
> seems it will be less clear than what we have now.  Perhaps we just need
> to document that md5() isn't for general use and some function in
> pgcrypto should be used instead?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On 1/21/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > > MD5 is broken in the sense that you can create two or more meaningful
> > > > documents with the same hash.
> > >
> > > Note that this isn't actually very interesting for the purpose for
> > > which the md5() function was put into core: namely, hashing passwords
> > > before they are stored in pg_authid.
> > 
> > Note: this was bad idea.  The function that should have been
> > added to core would be pg_password_hash(username, password).
> > 
> > Adding md5() lessens incentive to install pgcrypto or push/accept
> > digest() into core and gives impression there will be sha1(), etc
> > in the future.
> > 
> > Now users who want to store passwords in database (the most
> > popular usage) will probably go with md5() without bothering
> > with pgcrypto.  They probably see "Postgres itself uses MD5 too",
> > without realizing their situation is totally different from
> > pg_authid one.
> > 
> > It's like we have solution that is ACID-compliant 99% of the time in core,
> > so why bother with 100% one.
> > 
> > -- 
> > marko
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> > 
> >                http://archives.postgresql.org
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
> 
>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Richard WangDate: 2008-04-02 06:12:03
Subject: bug in float8in()
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2008-04-02 03:03:27
Subject: Re: build multiple indexes in single table pass?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Craig RingerDate: 2008-04-02 03:12:23
Subject: Re: Primary Key with serial the solution?
Previous:From: Douglas McNaughtDate: 2008-04-02 02:10:58
Subject: Re: dblink ,dblink_exec not participating in a Transaction??

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