X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C42D6DF5 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:29:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48059-04 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:29:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [12.31.43.34]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6E7D689B for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:29:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jA2DTrQo029081; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 08:29:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jA2DTnqh029079; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 08:29:50 -0500 From: "Mark R. Dingee" To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, mario.splivalo@mobart.hr Subject: Re: PGSQL encryption functions Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 08:29:47 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200511011438.06610.mark.dingee@cox.net> <28738.1130883210@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1130923587.7739.11.camel@ekim> In-Reply-To: <1130923587.7739.11.camel@ekim> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511020829.48299.mark.dingee@cox.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.025 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025] X-Spam-Score: 0.025 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/20 X-Sequence-Number: 23272 Mike & Tom, The script I'm using to "break" md5 presumes that the cracker knows the 3 elements being concatenated together to form the plain-text sting which is then passed into md5. The method I'm using then begins running through various permutations. Do you believe that the methodology is appropriate or that I'm being a bit paranoid? Thanks On Tuesday 01 November 2005 05:13 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > "Mark R. Dingee" writes: > > md5 works, but I've been able to > > brute-force crack it very quickly, > > Really? Where's your publication of this remarkable breakthrough? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly On Wednesday 02 November 2005 04:26 am, Mario Splivalo wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 17:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Mark R. Dingee" writes: > > > md5 works, but I've been able to > > > brute-force crack it very quickly, > > > > Really? Where's your publication of this remarkable breakthrough? > > I'd say you can't bruteforce md5, unless you're extremley lucky. > However, md5 is easily broken, you just need to know how to construct > the hashes. > > One could switch to SHA for 'increaased' security. > > Although I don't think he'd be having problems using MD5 as he described > it. I'd also lilke to see he's example of brute-force 'cracking' the MD5 > digest. > > Mike