Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords

From: "Frank Ch(dot) Eigler" <fche(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date: 2001-06-27 16:27:08
Message-ID: 20010627122708.D7873@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi -

tgl wrote:

: The 'passwd' mode wouldn't be affected, but the 'crypt' mode would be;
: it would become less secure than it is now, because the server would be
: forced to send the same salt always, and so a captured encrypted
: password would be just as useful as a captured plaintext one. That's
: the step backwards.

Oh, I see finally. You already put a custom little
challenge/response authentication scheme into postgresql,
and want to keep that working. (May I ask when/why that
went in at all? Was lower-layer encryption not an option?)

At least, it looks like the choice of authentication protocol is a
server-side decision. Backward-compatibility for old clients can
be forced by the adminstrator, whether the server switches to
encrypted password storage, and/or to lower-level encryption.

- FChE

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-27 16:27:49 pg_largeobject is a security hole
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2001-06-27 16:14:54 Re: functions returning records