| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
| Date: | 2012-08-21 00:35:21 |
| Message-ID: | 5032D7C9.3050201@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/20/2012 05:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/20/2012 07:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>> Moreover, as Josh just mentioned, anybody who
>> thinks it might be insufficiently secure for their purposes has got
>> plenty of alternatives available today (SSL certificates, PAM backed
>> by whatever-you-want, etc).
>>
>
> Yeah, I think we need to emphasize this lots more. Anyone who wants
> really secure authentication needs to be getting away from password
> based auth altogether. Another hash function will make very little
> difference.
Actually, I concede here. If we were pushing our other abilities more
visibly, I don't know that this argument would ever come up.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qi Huang | 2012-08-21 01:52:27 | [PATCH]Tablesample Submission |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-08-21 00:32:42 | Re: temporal support patch |