| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julian Markwort <julian(dot)markwort(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Valery Popov <v(dot)popov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
| Date: | 2016-07-03 21:34:00 |
| Message-ID: | 84a8f3d6-333d-1606-ac66-259a10898e6c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/2/16 3:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In related news, RFC 7677 that describes a new SCRAM-SHA-256
> authentication mechanism, was published in November 2015. It's identical
> to SCRAM-SHA-1, which is what this patch set implements, except that
> SHA-1 has been replaced with SHA-256. Perhaps we should forget about
> SCRAM-SHA-1 and jump straight to SCRAM-SHA-256.
I think a global change from SHA-1 to SHA-256 is in the air already, so
if we're going to release something brand new in 2017 or so, it should
be SHA-256.
I suspect this would be a relatively simple change, so I wouldn't mind
seeing a SHA-1-based variant in CF1 to get things rolling.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-03 22:46:17 | Re: fixing subplan/subquery confusion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-03 20:42:08 | Re: fixing subplan/subquery confusion |