[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20050420220830.GV58835@decibel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:08:30 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@...ibel.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@....pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@...wman.net>, pgsql-hackers@...tgresql.org,
bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:03:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, I have no particular problem with offering SHA1 as an alternative
> hash method for those who find MD5 too weak ... but I still question the
> value of putting any random salt in the table. AFAICS you would have to
> send that salt as part of the initial password challenge, which means
> any potential attacker could find it out even before trying to
> compromise pg_shadow; so Stephen's argument that there is a useful
> improvement in protection against precomputation of password hashes
> still falls down.
>
> BTW, one could also ask exactly what threat model Stephen is concerned
> about. ISTM anyone who can obtain the contents of pg_shadow has
> *already* broken your database security.
FWIW, I do think there's some benefit to not being able to pre-compute
an entire hash table for accounts such as 'postgres' and 'www'. But I
agree it would be useful to know the actual threat model.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@...ibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@...tgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists