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: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 23:17:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > 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.
> On the sites that are most likely to utilize that (because they have a lot
> of users) it won't work (because they use NIS).  There are better ways to
> do that (e.g., PAM).
> Also, see

Thanks.  That was a nice description.  Seems no one is worried about
losing /etc/passwd capability so I will not worry about doing
double-crypt and concentrate on md5.  I just didn't want to remove
functionality before warning people.

  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: Reinoud van LeeuwenDate: 2001-06-26 23:25:23
Subject: Re: functions returning records
Previous:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2001-06-26 22:02:46
Subject: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier

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