Hi Daniel, Thanks for the feedback.
> On 26/09/2021, at 12:09 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > > But 2b and 2a hashes aren't equal, although very similar. 2a should have the > many-buggy to one-correct collision safety and 2b hashes shouldn't. The fact > that your hashes work isn't conclusive evidence. I was afraid this might be a bit naive. Re-reading the crypt_blowfish release notes, it’s principally the changes introducing $2y$ into 1.2 that we need, with support for OpenBSD $2b$ introduced in 1.3. Do I understand this correctly? > Upgrading our crypt_blowfish.c to the upstream 1.3 version would be the > correct > fix IMO, but since we have a few local modifications it's not a drop-in. I > don't think it would be too hairy, but one needs to be very careful when > dealing with crypto. My C experience is limited, but I can make an initial attempt if the effort would be worthwhile. Is this realistically a patch that a newcomer to the codebase should attempt? > Actually it is, in table F.16 in the below documentation page we refer to our > supported level as "Blowfish-based, variant 2a”. Sorry I wasn’t clear. My point was that the docs only mention $2a$, and $2x$ isn’t mentioned even though pgcrypto supports it. As part of the upgrade to 1.3, perhaps the docs can be updated to mention variants x, y, and b as well. Thanks, Daniel
