Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3
Date: 2008-04-02 03:06:26
Message-ID: 200804020306.m3236QQ00410@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers


There isn't enough agreement to move some things from pgcrypto to the
core so this thread is being removed from the patch queue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I am not thrilled about moving _some_ of pgcrypto into the backend ---
> pgcrypto right now seems well designed and if we pull part of it out it
> seems it will be less clear than what we have now. Perhaps we just need
> to document that md5() isn't for general use and some function in
> pgcrypto should be used instead?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On 1/21/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > > MD5 is broken in the sense that you can create two or more meaningful
> > > > documents with the same hash.
> > >
> > > Note that this isn't actually very interesting for the purpose for
> > > which the md5() function was put into core: namely, hashing passwords
> > > before they are stored in pg_authid.
> >
> > Note: this was bad idea. The function that should have been
> > added to core would be pg_password_hash(username, password).
> >
> > Adding md5() lessens incentive to install pgcrypto or push/accept
> > digest() into core and gives impression there will be sha1(), etc
> > in the future.
> >
> > Now users who want to store passwords in database (the most
> > popular usage) will probably go with md5() without bothering
> > with pgcrypto. They probably see "Postgres itself uses MD5 too",
> > without realizing their situation is totally different from
> > pg_authid one.
> >
> > It's like we have solution that is ACID-compliant 99% of the time in core,
> > so why bother with 100% one.
> >
> > --
> > marko
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2008-04-02 03:12:23 Re: Primary Key with serial the solution?
Previous Message Douglas McNaught 2008-04-02 02:10:58 Re: dblink ,dblink_exec not participating in a Transaction??

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Wang 2008-04-02 06:12:03 bug in float8in()
Previous Message Greg Smith 2008-04-02 03:03:27 Re: build multiple indexes in single table pass?