-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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?
I think looking at this as putting some of pg_crypto into core is looking
at this the wrong way. We are never going to put the whole thing into
core given the current state of cryptography laws, as obviously the
current status of giving users md5() and nothing else is not ideal. What
we're looking for is a middle ground. It seems to me we've narrowed
it down to two questions:
1) Does sha1(), or other hashing algorithms risk running afoul of
I'm 100% sure that sha1() itself is not a problem (it's even a PHP builtin,
and good luck finding a box these days wihout that monstrosity installed).
I highly doubt any of the rest (SHA*, HMAC, etc.) are a problem either:
we're doing a one-way hash, not encrypting data. But common sense and
cryptography have seldom been seen together since the start of the cold war,
so I'll hold my final judgement.
2) Which ones do we include?
Putting sha1() seems a no-brainer, but as Joe points out, why not add all
the rest in at the same time?
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200801281506
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-28 20:20:59|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Friendly help for psql |
|Previous:||From: Decibel!||Date: 2008-01-28 20:03:04|
|Subject: Mail issue|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-28 21:13:24|
|Subject: Re: Surprising (?) Sequence Behavior |
|Previous:||From: Richard M. Kues||Date: 2008-01-28 19:38:38|
|Subject: Surprising (?) Sequence Behavior|