Re: You're on SecurityFocus.com for the cleartext passwords.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: You're on SecurityFocus.com for the cleartext passwords. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11055.957637762@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: You're on SecurityFocus.com for the cleartext passwords. (Benjamin Adida <ben@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: You're on SecurityFocus.com for the cleartext
passwords.
Re: You're on SecurityFocus.com for the cleartext passwords. Re: You're on SecurityFocus.com for the cleartext passwords. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Benjamin Adida <ben@mit.edu> writes: >> It doesn't sound like MD5 changes this at all. > The MD5 definitely doesn't change anything except overall security strength > of the algorithm. OK, understood. So it seems that switching to MD5 would offer (a) more portability to platforms without crypt(3), and (b) better security, at the costs of (a) implementation effort and (b) cross-version compatibility problems. We probably ought to keep that discussion separate from the one about how the challenge protocol works. > The additional random salt prevents someone from sniffing > the communication between client and server and then simply log in by > sending the known hash of the password. The challenge-response means that > sniffing one login doesn't allow you to fake the next one. How so? The server sends out one fixed salt (the one stored for that user's password in pg_shadow) and one randomly-chosen salt. The client sends back two crypted passwords. The server can check one of them. What can it do with the other? Nothing that I can see, so where is the security gain? A sniffer can still get in by sending back the same pair of crypted passwords next time, no matter what random salt is presented. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: