Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 authentication

2005-10-27 Thread Brian Mathis
On 10/27/05, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:33:50 +0200,  Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:>> By all means, submit a patch but there's no real hurry right now. We > should probably move straight to something more secure anyway, maybe> SHA-256 o

Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 authentication

2005-10-27 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:33:50 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > By all means, submit a patch but there's no real hurry right now. We > should probably move straight to something more secure anyway, maybe > SHA-256 or something. This makes more sense. There is little point in going to

Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 authentication

2005-10-24 Thread Bohdan Linda
Thank you for the explanation. Cheers, Bohdan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mai

Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 authentication

2005-10-24 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:39:11AM +0200, Bohdan Linda wrote: > > Hello all, > > I would like to use password authentication for pgsql users for remote > backup purposes. I don't like the fact storing cleartext password on a > system. From documentation, i have learnt that passwords can be encryp

[GENERAL] SHA1 authentication

2005-10-24 Thread Bohdan Linda
Hello all, I would like to use password authentication for pgsql users for remote backup purposes. I don't like the fact storing cleartext password on a system. From documentation, i have learnt that passwords can be encrypted by md5 and crypt methods. But we know, that md5 is rather weak encryp