| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc(at)openmv(dot)com>, "'Postgres General List'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: Oracle and Postgresql) |
| Date: | 2008-09-16 02:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 16972.1221531560@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-www |
Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> writes:
> What I'm _asking_ is why would extending SECURITY DEFINER to include
> preventing unauthorized users from viewing code _not_ be a valid method
> of securing the code.
Because it's so full of obvious loopholes. Yes, it might slow down
someone who didn't have superuser access to the database or root access
to the machine it's on; but that doesn't count as secure really. The
problem is that the people who ask for this type of feature are usually
imagining that they can put their code on customer-controlled machines
and it will be safe from the customer's eyes. Well, it isn't, and
I don't think Postgres should encourage them to think it is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gauthier, Dave | 2008-09-16 02:28:06 | left outer join on 3 tables ? |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2008-09-16 02:11:36 | Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: Oracle and Postgresql) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guido Barosio | 2008-09-16 04:19:52 | Fwd: 8FA9-8F0A-2C0E : REMINDER from pgsql-general |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2008-09-16 02:11:36 | Re: Obfuscated stored procedures (was Re: Oracle and Postgresql) |