Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154])
	by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e99MIXJ82030
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e99MIVB07532;
	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: Cedar Cox <cedarc@visionforisrael.com>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ODBC problem - crypt.. 
In-reply-to: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010092332560.23306-100000@nanu.visionforisrael.com>
References: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010092332560.23306-100000@nanu.visionforisrael.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Cedar Cox <cedarc@visionforisrael.com>
	message dated "Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:39:16 +0200"
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:18:31 -0400
Message-ID: <7529.971129911@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200010/49
X-Sequence-Number: 1406

Cedar Cox <cedarc@visionforisrael.com> writes:
> So.  If working with sensitive data, shouldn't the data be encrypted as
> well, not just the login sequence?

Yup; see SSL.

IIRC this was one of the reasons why a sniff-proof password security
protocol didn't seem like a critical issue.

			regards, tom lane