Re: Documentation for CREATE USER

*forgot to reply-all

I appreciate the feedback. I do understand in the scheme of things, this
is very low priority so I'll entrust the final say with you guys and
refrain from following up beyond this email.

> I'm not sure whether a doc is needed
It should avoid threads such as the one I first emailed about seen in [1].
In most contexts, if I had the option to "encrypt" a password and the only
choice of method was md5 - it begs to be googled "why"

> or where it [documentation] should go if it is
I figure it would be placed in as a note, similarly to the note seen below
"Joins Between Tables" found at [2]

> I don't agree with the characterization of md5 hashing with a salt
as being "simply obfuscated"
My point here is that given the developer's comments seen in [1]

"
So the only reason we bother with hashing here is to keep a superuser from
finding out your cleartext password, which might possibly let him crack
into non-database services that you foolishly used the same password for
"

Hashing is the means to reach an effectively obfuscated string of text
(general definition of the word: "render obscure, unclear, or
unintelligible.").

I appreciate your time,
Phil

[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7083.1200929593@sss.pgh.pa.us

[2]
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/tutorial-join.html

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Phil Olson <philip(dot)olson(dot)m(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > In short, I think it should be made clear that an encrypted user password
> > for all intents and purposes, is simply obfuscated.
>
> Well, I do agree that "encrypted" is a misleading word to use in this
> context, since "hashed" is the technically correct description of what
> gets stored in pg_authid.rolpassword when one uses:
>
> CREATE ROLE ... WITH ENCRYPTED PASSWORD 'secret'
>
> Though of course it's too late to change the SQL syntax we accept. And
> I'm not sure whether a doc change is needed, or where it should go if
> it is -- the section on pg_authid [1] already accurately spells out
> how we store rolpassword when the ENCRYPTED option is given. Possibly
> that description could be a bit more clear about the fact that
> "possibly encrypted" is talking about the 'ENCRYPTED' option of CREATE
> ROLE.
>
> I don't agree with the characterization of md5 hashing with a salt
> (not a particularly strong salt choice, but a salt nonetheless) as
> being "simply obfuscated". Here's a short summary of how obfuscation
> vs. hashing vs. encryption are generally distinguished:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/184369/1772673
>
> > Encrypted implies secure,
>
> See link above, "encrypted" has a basically well-understood definition.
>
> Josh
>
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/catalog-pg-authid.html
>