| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SCRAM salt length |
| Date: | 2017-08-24 18:22:17 |
| Message-ID: | 5c138491-5c0c-532e-af62-f179839c80ef@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/17/17 17:00, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Hence my original inquiry: "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?"
> Unless there is some significant downside to using 16 byte salt, that
> would be my vote.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-24 18:24:40 | Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2017-08-24 18:21:51 | Re: Proposal: global index |