Re: So we're in agreement....

The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> So, we're going to go with less security then is available on most Unix
> OSs?

What's your evidence for that assertion? Garfinkel & Spafford's
_Practical Unix and Internet Security_ recommends MD5 as a *more*
secure method for storing passwords than crypt() (page 720 in my
copy). DES is almost 20 years older than MD5, so I'm not sure
why you'd assume that it must be more secure.

> if we are going to do this, *please* just use the regular system
> crypt() function

Half of the argument for touching the issue at all is that we have a
lot of problems with crypt() --- not available on some platforms,
inconsistent results across platforms (not proven yet, but seems likely)
and a serious pain in the neck for our shared libraries to boot.
If we have to stick with crypt I'm not sure it's worth doing anything.

BTW, Vince, I see no need to reverse-engineer a Java implementation
into C. The original spec includes a C implementation ... and it
looks to have a reasonably BSDish license. See RFC 1321, eg at
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1321.html

regards, tom lane