From: lst_hoe02@kwsoft.de
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: User password encryption using a stronger hashing function?
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:13:22 +0100
Message-ID: <20111228111322.94923ucixnhfw06c@webmail.kwsoft.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EF3F318.8080706@ringerc.id.au>
References: <47AB18AC0F23934383F2BBA7EE3D8D742281BB698C@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
<47AB18AC0F23934383F2BBA7EE3D8D742281EB9415@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
<20111222104153.10445qh7dzbv35s0@webmail.kwsoft.de>
<4EF3F318.8080706@ringerc.id.au>
Zitat von Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>:
> On 22/12/2011 5:41 PM, lst_hoe02@kwsoft.de wrote:
>> Zitat von "Liu, Jianli (Jianli)" <jlliu@avaya.com>:
>>
>>> No one has responded to my questions. I am wondering if anyone can
>>> point me to where in postgresql source code I can further look
>>> into the issue and explore the possibility of this change? Thanks.
>>
>> I was already looking for the same topic but could not find
>> anything useful. Maybe no one is using the build-in password
>> encryption, but does it at application level with transparent data
>> access?
>>
>> Maybe one of the developers can explain why the choices for
>> build-in password encryption are that limited.
>>
> I'm not a Pg dev, but I won't be surprised if the v3 protocol
> doesn't support other hash functions. I haven't looked into it. If
> you'd like to know more I suggest you search for things like "md5",
> "sha1", "sha256", "stronger hash" etc on the pogsql-hackers mailing
> list archives.
>
> The main downside of md5 as a password hash function is that the
> result is small and quick to compute the standard of today's hashes,
> so rainbow tables are easier to build and can have better coverage.
> Brute-force cracking is also faster but there's not as much
> difference there.
>
> If you have a need for stronger hashing functions you might want to
> contact one of the consultants who does contract work on PostgreSQL
> development and find out what'd be involved in funding the
> development of the feature. Think about why you need it first,
> though; what threat(s) are you trying to protect from?
The reasoning is that if your Database content get lost your passwords
are in danger to be decrypted todays with md5 hash and most of the
time passwords are reused at other places. With stronger hashes at
least the password itself would be somewhat safe. But as said in many
environment the application does not use database users anyway, but
does its own user management with hopefully stronger encryption of the
passwords.
Thanks
Andreas
Attachments:
smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, 6.0K) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: lst_hoe02@kwsoft.de
Subject: Re: User password encryption using a stronger hashing function?
In-Reply-To: <20111228111322.94923ucixnhfw06c@webmail.kwsoft.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox