Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 14:03:57
Message-ID: 9540.997970637@sss.pgh.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:
> 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.

But aren't we increasing the size of the salt keyspace for MD5?
It'd surely be a major oversight not to.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-16 14:08:43 Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-16 13:56:24 Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords