Re: Salt in encrypted password in pg_shadow

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Salt in encrypted password in pg_shadow
Date: 2004-09-08 02:27:40
Message-ID: 14516.1094610460@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> writes:
> A random salt stored with the hashed password increases the storage
> and precomputation time required by the size of the salt (so a 16 bit
> salt would increase the storage and precomputation time needed by
> a factor of 65536). That increase makes the pre-computed dictionary
> attack pretty much infeasible.

[ raised eyebrow... ] It is not immediately obvious that a factor of
2^16 makes the difference between feasible and infeasible. As
counterexamples, if it would otherwise take you one microsecond to break
the password, 64 milliseconds isn't going to scare you; if it would
otherwise take you a century to break the password, raising it to
64k centuries isn't going to make for a very meaningful improvement in
security either.

Show me a scheme where the random salt isn't stored right beside the
password, and I might start to get interested.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-09-08 02:48:28 Re: Salt in encrypted password in pg_shadow
Previous Message David Garamond 2004-09-08 02:11:33 Re: Salt in encrypted password in pg_shadow