Am Donnerstag, den 21.04.2005, 09:32 -0400 schrieb Rod Taylor: > 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. Still this does not answer the question where that salt is to be stored :) (instead of username one could use somefacyhash(userid) to be independend from username - otoh, if you change usernames you usually face some other serious problems like object ownership and friends) -- Tino Wildenhain <tino@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
