Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date
Msg-id 200106261505.f5QF5tE06950@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød))
Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> My take on the matter is that we shouldn't invest any more effort in
> crypt-based solutions (here crypt means specifically crypt(3), it's
> not a generic term).  The future is double encryption using MD5 ---
> or s/MD5/more-modern-hash-algorithm-of-your-choice/, the exact choice
> is irrelevant to my point.  We ought to get off our duffs and implement
> that, then encourage people to migrate their clients ASAP.  The crypt
> code will be supported for awhile longer, but strictly as a
> backwards-compatibility measure for old clients.  There's no reason to
> spend any additional work on it.
> 
> For the same reason I don't see any value in the idea of adding
> crypt-based double encryption to clients.  We don't really want to
> support that over the long run, so why put effort into it?

The only reason to add double-crypt is so we can continue to use
/etc/passwd entries on systems that use crypt() in /etc/passwd.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.2 items
Next
From: Matthew Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: Backup and Recovery