Create Database on Windows XP
-
Key: CORE-4886
URL: http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-4886
Project: Firebird Core
Issue Type: Bug
Components: ISQL
Affects Versions: 3.0 Beta 2
Envir
I have brought this up before, and it might be a bit annoying that I do
so again, but I remain concerned by the fact that we are about to ship a
product (Firebird 3) that uses hashing and encryption algorithms (SHA-1
and RC4) that most in the industry consider outdated and (relatively)
insecure
On 25-7-2015 15:08, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
> 25.07.2015 15:45, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> >
>> How would I go about that if none of the errors in that facility are
>> defined inside Firebird,
>
> We could define and reserve facility code for Jaybird and let you know it.
That would be great.
>> an
Get real. Read about the actual problems. Bthe issue is that there is a
theoretical problem that a manufactured duplicate collision could be
manufactored in something like time 2^82, something that nobody has
actually be able to do.
Sure, SHA-1 has a known weakeness. It's replacement probably ha
On 07/26/2015 01:39 PM, James Starkey wrote:
> Get real. Read about the actual problems. Bthe issue is that there is a
> theoretical problem that a manufactured duplicate collision could be
> manufactored in something like time 2^82, something that nobody has
> actually be able to do.
>
> Sure, SH
Personally, I've recently started using (mostly for kicks) things like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcrypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBKDF2
I suppose the option to tune them in the future (or even introduce a
configurable parameter) is also a plus.
2015-07
On 7/26/2015 2:38 PM, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> On 07/26/2015 01:39 PM, James Starkey wrote:
>> If you were starting over from scratch, you wouldn't want to use SHA-1 to
>> avoid wasting time with discussions like this. See also RC4. But the
>> problem with SHA-1 doesn't justify the inconvenience of
26.07.2015 12:08, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> On 25-7-2015 15:08, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
>> 25.07.2015 15:45, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>>>
>>> How would I go about that if none of the errors in that facility are
>>> defined inside Firebird,
>>
>> We could define and reserve facility code for Jaybird
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Vlad Khorsun
wrote:
>
> >
> > Or is there a reason to ignore those higher bits for the facility and
> code?
>
>I have no idea why ENCODE_ISC_MSG written in this way.
>
> > CLASS_MASK seems to not be used anywhere, or at least I can't remember
> > ever having s
> Personally, I've recently started using (mostly for kicks) things like
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcrypt
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBKDF2
> I suppose the option to tune them in the future (or even introduce a
> configurable
> parameter) is also
10 matches
Mail list logo
