| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Arthur Silva <arthurprs(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing our reliance on MD5 |
| Date: | 2015-02-11 20:25:53 |
| Message-ID: | 54DBBAD1.9010203@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/11/2015 06:35 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> Usually because handshakes use a random salt on both sides. Not sure
> about pg's though, but in general collision strength is required but
> not slowness, they're not bruteforceable.
To be precise: collision resistance is usually not important for hashes
used in authentication handshakes. Not for our MD5 authentication method
anyway; otherwise we'd be screwed. What you need is resistance to
pre-image attacks.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Properties
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-02-11 20:34:17 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-02-11 20:21:12 | Re: assessing parallel-safety |