Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date
Msg-id 200108161408.f7GE8hi17713@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Just a reminder.  What I think it insecure is the size of our salt.
> > With only 3300 possible salts, it doesn't take long to playback a
> > duplicate.  That is true of MD5 and crypt.
>
> But aren't we increasing the size of the salt keyspace for MD5?
> It'd surely be a major oversight not to.

We aren't.  I can do that, but have not discussed it yet.  If we do it
is clearly a protocol change.  How will old clients handle longer salt,
and how do I know if they are older if I don't bump up the protocol
version number?

--
  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, Pennsylvania 19026

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Next
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for fetchone() and fetchmany() in Python interface