On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 11:06 +0200, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 20.04.2005, 16:23 -0500 schrieb Jim C. Nasby:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:03:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ...
> > Simply put, MD5 is no longer strong enough for protecting secrets. It's
> > just too easy to brute-force. SHA1 is ok for now, but it's days are
> > numbered as well. I think it would be good to alter SHA1 (or something
> > stronger) as an alternative to MD5, and I see no reason not to use a
> > random salt instead of username.
>
> I wonder where you want to store that random salt and how this would add
> to the security.
One advantage of a random salt would be that the username can be changed
without having to reset the password at the same time.
> Am Mittwoch, den 20.04.2005, 16:23 -0500 schrieb Jim C. Nasby:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:03:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ...
> > Simply put, MD5 is no longer strong enough for protecting secrets. It's
> > just too easy to brute-force. SHA1 is ok for now, but it's days are
> > numbered as well. I think it would be good to alter SHA1 (or something
> > stronger) as an alternative to MD5, and I see no reason not to use a
> > random salt instead of username.
>
> I wonder where you want to store that random salt and how this would add
> to the security.
One advantage of a random salt would be that the username can be changed
without having to reset the password at the same time.
--
[ reply ]