Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM
Date: 2012-10-14 02:00:17
Message-ID: CAM-w4HNtNZjGWes-SASjB5gDeK01n7bn9fV-Y1e1Arjw17OpwA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Salt length. Greg Stark calculated the odds of salt collisions here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-08/msg01540.php. It's not
> too bad as it is, and as Greg pointed out, if you can eavesdrop it's likely
> you can also hijack an already established connection. Nevertheless I think
> we should make the salt longer, say, 16 bytes.

Fwiw that calculation was based on the rule of thumb that a collision
is likely when you have sqrt(hash space) elements. Wikipedia has a
better formula which comes up with 77,163.

For 16 bytes that formula gives 2,171,938,135,516,356,249 salts before
you expect a collision.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-10-14 02:46:04 Re: parallel pg_dump
Previous Message Satoshi Nagayasu 2012-10-14 01:46:16 Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2