public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Joe Conway <[email protected]>
To: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
To: PostgreSQL mailing lists <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Changing references of password encryption to hashing
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:51:52 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB7nPqR82_57C8O1+z-bUChhHpdjMec_omLfKwYdjAFjjcrBWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB7nPqR82_57C8O1+z-bUChhHpdjMec_omLfKwYdjAFjjcrBWg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 03/09/2017 06:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As discussed here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected]
> We are using in documentation and code comments "encryption" to define
> what actually is hashing, which is confusing.
>
> Attached is a patch for HEAD to change the documentation to match hashing.
>
> There are a couple of things I noticed on the way:
> 1) There is the user-visible PQencryptPassword in libpq, which
> actually hashes the password, and not encrypts it :)
> 2) There is as well pg_md5_encrypt() in the code, as well as there is
> pg_md5_hash(). Those may be better if renamed, at least I would think
> that pg_md5_encrypt should be pg_md5_password_hash, because a salt is
> used as well, and the routine is dedicated to work on passwords.
> Thoughts?
> 3) createuser also has --encrypt and --unencrypted, perhaps those
> should be renamed? Honestly I don't really think that this is worth a
> breakage and the option names match with the SQL commands.
My opinion is that the user visible aspects of this should be deprecated
and correct syntax provided. But perhaps that is overkill.
8<------------
key and server key, respectively, in hexadecimal format. A password that
- does not follow either of those formats is assumed to be unencrypted.
+ does not follow either of those formats is assumed to be in plain
format,
+ non-hashed.
</para>
</sect1>
8<------------
I think here, instead of "in plain format, non-hashed" it is ok to just
say "cleartext" or maybe "plaintext". Whichever is picked, it should be
used consistently.
8<------------
<caution>
<para>
- To prevent unencrypted passwords from being sent across the network,
+ To prevent non-hashed passwords from being sent across the network,
8<------------
same here "non-hashed" ==> "cleartext"
8<------------
<para>
- Caution must be exercised when specifying an unencrypted password
+ Caution must be exercised when specifying a non-hashed password
8<------------
and here
...etc...
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (819B, ../[email protected]/2-signature.asc)
download
view thread (9+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Changing references of password encryption to hashing
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox