* Peter Bex (Peter.Bex@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > I could try my hand at providing a patch to switch to, say, bcrypt, > but I'm pretty unfamiliar with the PostgreSQL source code. If > nobody else is interested in working on it I can give it a try > during the holidays. The code, in general, is very clean. The issues you're going to run into are questions about protocol support (the hash, in some ways, is currently part of our PG protocol and so changing that would be a break in the protocol which would be frowned upon greatly...) and making sure that things don't break internally. Note that not everything uses libpq to talk to PG (the JDBC driver, for example, has a completely seperate implementation of the protocol, as I recall). You'll also need to address the upgrade path. If this is implemented as an optional capability, that's more likely to be acceptable but at the same time might not really 'fix' things. I, for one, would love to see some work done in this area and would be happy to help you with any questions you have regarding the code. > I'm not sure how to deal with the md5 authentication method. > There is a good point in the -hackers thread above that eavesdroppers > are probably able to hijack existing connections, but there's no reason > to take any risks. We do support SSL also, of course, and we do encourage people to use it whenever possible and definitely if going across untrusted networks. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
