Re: Password encryption method

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Andrus <kobruleht2(at)hot(dot)ee>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Password encryption method
Date: 2007-01-20 01:35:46
Message-ID: 20070120013546.GA30390@wolff.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 18:24:32 +0200,
Andrus <kobruleht2(at)hot(dot)ee> wrote:
> > It might make more sense to use your own table of users and hashed
> > passwords
> > rather than postgres'. This would depend somewhat on the overlap of users
> > who
> > are using your application and those who connect directly to the database.
> > If there isn't much overlap, having a separate table is probably better.
>
> Using own table requires storing Postgres user name and password in client
> computer. Thus this information is available to virtually everyone haveing
> access to client computer.
> So this is very bad idea and should avoided at all.

No, the tables would be on the server, the same as was already being done.
Using a separate table makes it more future proof.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2007-01-20 01:39:24 Re: Multiple column index question.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-20 00:21:50 Re: Help : Microsoft SQL Server equivalents in