| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
| Date: | 2012-08-15 15:22:05 |
| Message-ID: | 502BBE9D.6060106@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/15/2012 06:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Is there a TODO here?
>
> If anybody's concerned about the security of our password storage,
> they'd be much better off working on improving the length and randomness
> of the salt string than replacing the md5 hash per se.
Or change to an md5 HMAC rather than straight md5 with salt. Last I
checked (which admittedly was a while ago) there were still no known
cryptographic weaknesses associated with an HMAC based on md5.
Joe
--
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-08-15 15:37:04 | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-15 14:05:54 | Re: Don't allow relative path for copy from file |