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. --
