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

Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jim Mercer <jim(at)reptiles(dot)org>, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date: 2001-06-26 15:05:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> My take on the matter is that we shouldn't invest any more effort in
> crypt-based solutions (here crypt means specifically crypt(3), it's
> not a generic term).  The future is double encryption using MD5 ---
> or s/MD5/more-modern-hash-algorithm-of-your-choice/, the exact choice
> is irrelevant to my point.  We ought to get off our duffs and implement
> that, then encourage people to migrate their clients ASAP.  The crypt
> code will be supported for awhile longer, but strictly as a
> backwards-compatibility measure for old clients.  There's no reason to
> spend any additional work on it.
> For the same reason I don't see any value in the idea of adding
> crypt-based double encryption to clients.  We don't really want to
> support that over the long run, so why put effort into it?

The only reason to add double-crypt is so we can continue to use
/etc/passwd entries on systems that use crypt() in /etc/passwd.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-26 15:27:51
Subject: Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-26 15:03:38
Subject: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group