From: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Password security question |
Date: | 2002-12-17 18:30:21 |
Message-ID: | 3DFF6D3D.4010606@mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Greg Copeland wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 10:49, mlw wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi guys,
>>>
>>>Just a thought - do we explicitly wipe password strings from RAM after using
>>>them?
>>>
>>>I just read an article (by MS in fact) that illustrates a cute problem.
>>>Imagine you memset the password to zeros after using it. There is a good
>>>chance that the compiler will simply remove the memset from the object code
>>>as it will seem like it can be optimised away...
>>>
>>>Just wondering...
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Could you post that link? That seems wrong, an explicit memset certainly
>>changes the operation of the code, and thus should not be optimized away.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>I'd like to see the link too.
>
>I can imagine that it would be possible for it to optimize it away if
>there wasn't an additional read/write access which followed. In other
>words, why do what is more or less a no-op if it's never accessed again.
>
>
It has been my experience that the MSC optimizer uses a patented
Heisenberg optimizer. :)
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-18 00:14:25 | pgsql-server/src/backend/executor nodeIndexscan.c |
Previous Message | mlw | 2002-12-17 18:26:12 | Re: Password security question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Kirkwood | 2002-12-17 18:38:11 | Re: Suggestion; "WITH VACUUM" option |
Previous Message | mlw | 2002-12-17 18:26:12 | Re: Password security question |