On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 01:42:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> > In summary: what would objections be to my writing a sha1() patch?
>
> Mainly that no one else is dissatisfied with the current split
> between core and pgcrypto.
>
> The only reason md5() is in core is to support encryption of
> passwords in pg_shadow. There are good reasons not to have any more
> crypto capability in core than we absolutely have to; mainly to do
> with benighted laws in some countries.
Is there any country with laws so benighted that they restrict secure
hashing algorithms? Right now, there's a contest between SHA1 and
MD5 as to which one gets broken first, and SHA1 appears to be in the
lead. SHAn for n>1 could preempt the awfulness of losing this race.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate