| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
| Date: | 2012-08-15 15:37:04 |
| Message-ID: | 502BC220.3090901@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/15/2012 11:22 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 08/15/2012 06:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> Is there a TODO here?
>> If anybody's concerned about the security of our password storage,
>> they'd be much better off working on improving the length and randomness
>> of the salt string than replacing the md5 hash per se.
> Or change to an md5 HMAC rather than straight md5 with salt. Last I
> checked (which admittedly was a while ago) there were still no known
> cryptographic weaknesses associated with an HMAC based on md5.
>
Possibly. I still think the right time to revisit this whole area will
be when the NIST Hash Function competition ends supposedly later this
year. See <http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/timeline.html>. At that
time we should probably consider moving our password handling to use the
new standard function.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-15 15:39:30 | Re: pg_stat_replication vs StandbyReplyMessage |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2012-08-15 15:22:05 | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |