Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length
Date
Msg-id f56a14b2-2367-7701-a73a-770ab2a7524f@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 08/17/2017 04:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the initial discussions there was as well a mention about using 16 bytes.
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/507550BD.2030401@vmware.com
>> As we are using SCRAM-SHA-256, let's bump it up and be consistent.
>> That's now or never.
> 
> This was discussed and changed once before at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/df8c6e27-4d8e-5281-96e5-131a4e638fc8@8kdata.com

Different thing. That was the nonce length, now we're talking about salt 
length.

I think 2^96 is large enough. The RFC doesn't say anything about salt 
length, but the one example in it uses a 16 byte string as the salt. 
That's more or less equal to the current default of 12 raw bytes, after 
base64-encoding.

On 08/17/2017 05:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:> That's now or never.

Not really. That constant is just the default to use when creating new 
password verifiers, but the code can handle any salt length, and 
different verifiers can have different lengths.

- Heikki



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length
Next
From: Erik Rijkers
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] changed column-count breaks pdf build