On 8/17/17 12:10, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 8/17/17 09:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> The RFC doesn't say anything about salt >>> length, but the one example in it uses a 16 byte string as the salt. >>> That's more or less equal to the current default of 12 raw bytes, after >>> base64-encoding. >> >> The example is >> >> S: r=rOprNGfwEbeRWgbNEkqO%hvYDpWUa2RaTCAfuxFIlj)hNlF$k0, >> s=W22ZaJ0SNY7soEsUEjb6gQ==,i=4096 >> >> That salt is 24 characters and 16 raw bytes. > > Ah, I see, that's from the SCRAM-SHA-256 spec. I was looking at the > example in the original SCRAM-SHA-1 spec: > > S: r=fyko+d2lbbFgONRv9qkxdawL3rfcNHYJY1ZVvWVs7j,s=QSXCR+Q6sek8bf92, > i=4096
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?" -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
