| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers |
| Date: | 2017-04-21 14:33:01 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jLpn2PJFR6bQAYiVfXcFyq6J0=2dwc9oAG4Wh9cNi12Xw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 April 2017 at 14:42, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>>> SCRAM-SHA-256$<iteration count>:<salt>$<StoredKey>:<ServerKey>
>>>
>>> Could you explain where you are looking? I don't see that in RFC5803
>>
> >From 1. Overview:
>
> Yeah, it's not easy to see, I missed it earlier too. You have to look at RFC 5803 and RFC 3112 together. RFC 3112 says that the overall format is "<scheme>$<authInfo>$<authValue>", and RFC5803 says that for SCRAM, scheme is "SCRAM-SHA-256" (for our variant), authInfo is "<iteration count>:<salt>" and authValue is "<StoredKey>:<ServerKey>"
>
> They really should've included examples in those RFCs.
Thanks
+1 for change
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2017-04-21 14:36:57 | Re: Old versions of Test::More |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-21 14:31:57 | Re: tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical rep depends on? |