From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3 |
Date: | 2008-01-20 20:35:23 |
Message-ID: | 20080120203523.GE24542@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 01:42:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
> > In summary: what would objections be to my writing a sha1() patch?
>
> Mainly that no one else is dissatisfied with the current split
> between core and pgcrypto.
>
> The only reason md5() is in core is to support encryption of
> passwords in pg_shadow. There are good reasons not to have any more
> crypto capability in core than we absolutely have to; mainly to do
> with benighted laws in some countries.
Is there any country with laws so benighted that they restrict secure
hashing algorithms? Right now, there's a contest between SHA1 and
MD5 as to which one gets broken first, and SHA1 appears to be in the
lead. SHAn for n>1 could preempt the awfulness of losing this race.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2008-01-20 20:51:07 | setof record "out" syntax and returning records |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-01-20 19:18:00 | Re: Sun acquires MySQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-20 20:45:00 | Re: Friendly help for psql |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-01-20 20:32:10 | Re: Friendly help for psql |