Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Was that really the conclusion? My memory of this thread showed that
most people who actually deal with hashes and cryptography *wanted* a
SHA based hash in core (because our users ask for it!) and the only
disagreement was in *what* should be included.

//Magnus

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> There isn't enough agreement to move some things from pgcrypto to the
> core so this thread is being removed from the patch queue.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > I am not thrilled about moving _some_ of pgcrypto into the backend
> > --- pgcrypto right now seems well designed and if we pull part of
> > it out it seems it will be less clear than what we have now.
> > Perhaps we just need to document that md5() isn't for general use
> > and some function in pgcrypto should be used instead?
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Marko Kreen wrote:
> > > On 1/21/08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > > > MD5 is broken in the sense that you can create two or more
> > > > > meaningful documents with the same hash.
> > > >
> > > > Note that this isn't actually very interesting for the purpose
> > > > for which the md5() function was put into core: namely, hashing
> > > > passwords before they are stored in pg_authid.
> > > 
> > > Note: this was bad idea.  The function that should have been
> > > added to core would be pg_password_hash(username, password).
> > > 
> > > Adding md5() lessens incentive to install pgcrypto or push/accept
> > > digest() into core and gives impression there will be sha1(), etc
> > > in the future.
> > > 
> > > Now users who want to store passwords in database (the most
> > > popular usage) will probably go with md5() without bothering
> > > with pgcrypto.  They probably see "Postgres itself uses MD5 too",
> > > without realizing their situation is totally different from
> > > pg_authid one.
> > > 
> > > It's like we have solution that is ACID-compliant 99% of the time
> > > in core, so why bother with 100% one.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > marko
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched
> > > our list archives?
> > > 
> > >                http://archives.postgresql.org
> > 
> > -- 
> >   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
> >   EnterpriseDB
> > http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
> > 
> >   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to
> > increase your free space map settings
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
> 
>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers