Re: So we're in agreement....

> > Yes, MD5, double-crypt with pg_shadow salt and random salt.  Sounds like
> > a winner all around.
> 
> why pg_shadow salt ? for md5 we will need to store it separately anyway.
> why not MD5(<server-supplied-random-salt> || MD5(<username> ||
> <password>))
> that way we would overcome the original need for salt (accidental
> discovery 
> of similar passwords) and would have no need for storing the salt.
> 
> actually we would probably need some kind of separator as well to avoid
> the scenario of <user>+<password> and <userpa>+<ssword> being the same 
> and thus having the same md5 hash. so the escheme could be
> 
> MD5(<server-supplied-random-salt> || '\n' || MD5(<username> || '\n' ||
> <password>))
> 
> AFAIK there is no easy way to have a newline inside password. 

Well, unix passwords don't use the username as salt, so why should we?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026