On 05.03.24 11:50, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> * Should we actually document the exact list of algorithms along with
>> detailed reasons? This list seems prone to becoming outdated.
>
> If we don't detail the list then I think that it's not worth doing, doing the
> research isn't entirely trivial as one might not even know where to look or
> what to look for.
>
> I don't think this list will move faster than we can keep up with it,
> especially since it's more or less listing everything that pgcrypto supports at
> this point.
The more detail we provide, the more detailed questions can be asked
about it. Like:
The introduction says certain algorithms are vulnerable to attacks. Is
3DES vulnerable to attacks? Or just deprecated?
What about something like CAST5? This is in the OpenSSL legacy
provider, but I don't think it's know to be vulnerable. Is its status
different from 3DES?
It says MD5 should not be used for digital signatures. But is password
hashing a digital signature? How are these related? Similarly about
SHA-1, which has a different level of detail.
Blowfish is advised against, but by whom? By us?