Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length
Дата
Msg-id 5c138491-5c0c-532e-af62-f179839c80ef@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 8/17/17 17:00, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Hence my original inquiry: "I suspect that this length was chosen based
>> on the example in RFC 5802 (SCRAM-SHA-1) section 5.  But the analogous
>> example in RFC 7677 (SCRAM-SHA-256) section 3 uses a length of 16.
>> Should we use that instead?"
> Unless there is some significant downside to using 16 byte salt, that
> would be my vote.

committed

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: global index
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery