| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: dblink vs SQL/MED - security and implementation details |
| Date: | 2009-01-06 21:40:58 |
| Message-ID: | 11748.1231278058@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Usually it would have been the server owner who created those user
> mappings in the first place -- so the passwords are already known
> to him/her. Of course it is possible to create the mappings first
> and later change the ownership of the server, thus exposing the
> passwords to a new role. But IMHO, it would be reasonable to assume
> that the owner of the server has full control over its user mappings.
So the DBA should know his users' passwords for remote sites? That's
not normally considered good security practice.
If the passwords were encrypted strings it might be acceptable, but
without some libpq changes I think they'd have to be cleartext :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2009-01-06 22:13:41 | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: failed to find conversion function from "unknown" to text |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-06 21:32:22 | Re: parallel restore |