Re: Drawbacks of using BYTEA for PK?

From: "D(dot) Dante Lorenso" <dante(at)lorenso(dot)com>
To: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Drawbacks of using BYTEA for PK?
Date: 2004-01-12 18:01:06
Message-ID: 4002E0E2.7030208@lorenso.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Adding an MD5 hash contributes *absolutely zero*, except waste of space,
>> to any attempt to make a GUID. The hash will add no uniqueness that was
>> not there before.
>
The cool thing about a 'GUID' (or in my example a hashed sequence number
[sure
toss in some entropy if you want it]) is that if you happen to reference
that
value as a primary key on a table, the URL that passes the argument can not
be guessed at easily. For example using a sequence:

http://domain.com/application/load_record.html?customer_id=12345

Then, users of the web will assume that you have at most 12345
customers. And
they can try to look up information on other customers by doing:

http://domain.com/application/load_record.html?customer_id=12346
http://domain.com/application/load_record.html?customer_id=12344

...basically walking the sequence. Sure, you will protect against this with
access rights, BUT...seeing the sequence is a risk and not something you
want
to happen. NOW, if you use a GUID:


http://domain.com/application/load_record.html?customer_id=f46d6296-5362-2526-42e3-1b8ce9dcccc1

Right, so now try to guess the next value in this sequence. It's a little
more protective and obfuscated (an advantage in using GUIDs).

Dante

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message elein 2004-01-12 18:01:49 Re: History-based (or logged) database.
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2004-01-12 17:58:22 Re: Case sensitivity