| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SCRAM salt length |
| Date: | 2017-08-16 15:10:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20170816151028.GA13062@e733.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
He Peter,
> The SCRAM salt length is currently set as
>
> /* length of salt when generating new verifiers */
> #define SCRAM_DEFAULT_SALT_LEN 12
>
> without further comment.
>
> I suspect that this length was chosen based on the example in RFC 5802
> (SCRAM-SHA-1) section 5. But the analogous example in RFC 7677
> (SCRAM-SHA-256) section 3 uses a length of 16. Should we use that instead?
Maybe this length was chosen just because it becomes a 16-characters
string after base64encode. If I understand correctly RFC 5802 and RFC
7677 don't say much about the required or recommended length of the
salt.
I personally believe that 2^96 of possible salts is consistent with both
RFCs and should be enough in practice.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-16 15:14:03 | Re: [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-16 15:03:54 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions. |