Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords

> 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