From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
Date: | 2001-08-16 16:23:39 |
Message-ID: | 200108161623.f7GGNdX02112@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > 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?
>
> All of this is under the aegis of a new auth method code, so it doesn't
> matter. Either clients handle the new auth method, or they don't.
OK, here is a new patch that creates a new md5 keyword on pg_hba.conf.
That certainly makes my coding easier, and when I apply the patch to use
larger salt for MD5, there is now a good reason to have a different
keyword. With the old system, they could have used an old client to
reply a sniffed packet, while now, if the host is set to MD5, they have
a much larger namespace with no fallback to crypt.
Applied.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
unknown_filename | text/plain | 11.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-16 16:37:32 | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-16 16:09:23 | Re: Fix for fetchone() and fetchmany() in Python interface |