On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:07:31 +0200
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > However, if all it needs is a modern encryption scheme that's probably
> > an hour's work. The only reason that I haven't done so yet is because
> > I have no use case. If I am storing encrypted passwords in a database
> > it's probably because I need to generate many password files from it.
> > As a result I need to keep it at the LCD. That's DES.
>
> Is there any reason for using this one over just using pgcrypto, which
> also gives you a whole lot more functionality?
Not quite the same. The pgcrypto module adds encryption functions but
chkpass adds an encrypted type. I suppose chkpass could be implemented
in terms of pgcrypto if one wished.
> > Which described functions are missing? I wouldn't mind having a
> > chance to clean it up before it is removed just in case someone else
> > wants to grab it from CVS later.
>
> /* This function checks that the password is a good one
> * It's just a placeholder for now */
> static int
> verify_pass(const char *str)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> It is documented that this is just a stub though.
Ah yes. I generally call external modules for that functionality as
they are much better at that than I could be in chkpass. I can upgrade
the external module when new ones appear rather than recompiling
chkpass each time.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
