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 D24CFD83A7 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:13:04 -0300 (ADT) 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 12909-01 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 01:13:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from stark.xeocode.com (stark.xeocode.com [216.58.44.227]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FA7D82F3 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:13:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.xeocode.com) by stark.xeocode.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EDAyM-0001NQ-00; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:13:02 -0400 To: josh@agliodbs.com Cc: mark@mark.mielke.cc, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, nathan wagner Subject: Re: uuid type (moved from HACKERS) References: <20050906135057.GA24136@granicus.if.org> <200509071131.17161.josh@agliodbs.com> <20050907201016.GA24672@mark.mielke.cc> <200509071335.56822.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <200509071335.56822.josh@agliodbs.com> From: Greg Stark Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992 Date: 07 Sep 2005 21:13:01 -0400 Message-ID: <877jds5plu.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> Lines: 31 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.005 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/82 X-Sequence-Number: 22629 Josh Berkus writes: > Mark, Nathan, > > I'm moving this over to the PGSQL-SQL list, away from -hackers, as it's no > longer a -hackers type discussion. Hope you don't mind! > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:31:16AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > I'm also a little baffled to come up with any real application where > > > making an id number for most tables "unguessable" would provide any > > > kind of real protection not far better provided by other means. For > > > your "users" table, sure, but that's a very special case. > > > > It should never be the sole means of defense, however, it can be quite > > effective at prevention. > > > > For a rather simple example, consider a site that associates a picture > > with each member. If the pictures are named 1.jpg, 2.jpg, 3.jpg, etc. > > it makes it ridiculously easy to write a script to pull all of the > > pictures off the site. This can be bothersome, as the only type of > > person who would do this, is the type of person with an illegitimate > > motivation. I want the data to be easily and freely accessible as > > specific objects, but I do not wish to provide an easy way of > > dumping all of the data as a unit. Of course you could have just done the same thing using an hmac (or a simple hash like crypt) and not had to store an extraneous meaningless piece of information in your database. -- greg