I read that the password hash in pg_shadow is salted with username. Is this still the case? If so, since probably 99% of all PostgreSQL has "postgres" as the superuser name, wouldn't it be better to use standard Unix/Apache MD5 hash instead?
How does that improve anything? If we add a random salt into it, we'd have to store the salt in pg_shadow, so there wouldn't be any secrecy added --- an attacker who can read pg_shadow could see the salt too.
Consider someone who creates a long list of:
MD5( "postgres" + "aaaaaaaa" ) MD5( "postgres" + "aaaaaaab" ) MD5( "postgres" + "aaaaaaac" ) ...
Now if he has access to other people's pg_shadow, he can compare the hashes with his dictionary. Replacing "postgres" with a random salt defeats this dictionary attack (and thus he will have to resort to brute force).
(Actually, an attacker who can read pg_shadow is already superuser, so it's not clear there's anything left to hide from him anyway.)
But consider someone who finds a harddisk or tape containing a database backup... he can then gain access to the real, online database.
-- dave
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
