Karl O. Pinc wrote:
On 01/03/2006 09:45:02 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 1/3/06, kami petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on a related subject: what's keeping that diff you did to add
salting to
> vnconfig from hitting the tree? (or something like it)
i don't believe that the people asking for cgd really even intend to
use it.
I don't intend to use svnd (and so have not been paying attention
but am venturing to comment anyway), but I do _like_ the idea
of having it there to use should the need arise. Salting sounds
like something I want because, again, in my uninformed opinion,
otherwise you wouldn't see it all over the place in password
hashes. Apparently the implementation complexity v.s. increase
in security trade-off comes out in favor of salting in at least
that problem domain. It would be a question I'd investigate should
I ever want an encrypted file system. I'm interested enough
to pay a little attention now should somebody either decide
to implement salting in svnd or explain why I don't want it.
I think you are missing the point, cgd and salting are two different and
unrelated things. It's not because cgd isn't making it into OpenBSD,
that salting won't make it into svnd. I'd explain, but frankly after a
night at work i'd rather go and sleep while you google :-)
ps. tedu just said that he got no comments about his diff, if you really
think the idea is valuable, you should be testing the diff.
