| 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: | 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 16:56:37 |
| Message-ID: | 200108161656.f7GGucw04343@candle.pha.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:
> > Salt is currently defined as char[2]. Should I encode the rand() as
> > char[4] and send that, or skip null and still encode it as char[4].
>
> There's no need to avoid nulls here, AFAICS. Making the salt a
> fixed-length binary string seems like the best bet.
We have to avoid NULL because we paste together the password and
username with the salt to MD5 encrypt.
Also, I now need two salts, one base62 for crypt and a new one for MD5.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-16 17:01:27 | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-16 16:49:30 | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |