Nmap Security Scanner
*Intro
*Ref Guide
*Install Guide
*Download
*Changelog
*Book
*Docs
Security Lists
*Nmap Hackers
*Nmap Dev
*Bugtraq
*Full Disclosure
*Pen Test
*Basics
*More
Security Tools
*Pass crackers
*Sniffers
*Vuln Scanners
*Web scanners
*Wireless
*Exploitation
*Packet crafters
*More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:




bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords
From: Antoine Martin <antoine () nagafix co uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:21 +0100

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 17:27 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 22:27:01 -0400,
  Stephen Frost <sfrost () snowman net> wrote:

SHA2 would also be nice.

I think the new hash functions are called SHA256 and SHA512.
For Postgres' purposes the recent weaknesses found in SHA1 and MD5
aren't a big deal.
It is irrelevant here, if I am reading this correctly:
http://theory.csail.mit.edu/~yiqun/shanote.pdf
"collision search attacks"
Basically, multiple input data that have the same output hash, which is
of no use when what you are trying to find is the input.
Finding collisions quicker for a known input is one thing, but that is
not going to reduce the search space, not even your storage space (it is
unlikely that the colliding results would all be valid input).

Is adding the non-guessable salt that hard anyway?


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]