Re: Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>
From: Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org>
To: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-06-17T15:28:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 11:05:52PM +0800, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > At 12:04 AM 6/16/01 -0400, Jim Mercer wrote: > >On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 11:20:30AM +0800, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > >> If you need to use encryption then having _everything_ encrypted is a > >> better idea - SSL etc. Those >1GHz CPUs are handy ;). > > > >[ yes, i noted the smiley ] > > > >it is rather unfortunate to see the OSS community buying into the tenents > >that allowed microsoft to get world domination based on crap quality > >software. > > > >"hardware is cheap" is a falsehood. > > My point is if you really need encryption, then your data should be > encrypted too, otherwise it seems a waste of time or more a "feel good" thing. i would agree with that. i guess my rantwas moreso in reaction to what i was as creeping featurism, with words aluding to "depreciating" legacy functionality. maybe not your words, but that was what set me off on this thread. -- [ Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]