| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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: | 2017-08-17 07:41:54 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jJsW89ktG9R9SfdU09oLrFQpuKZeJGWtmnpqvNoJmbfdg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 August 2017 at 14:10, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
16 preferred, IMHO
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2017-08-17 08:12:07 | Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-08-17 07:29:18 | Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order |