Re: Security leak with trigger functions?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Security leak with trigger functions?
Date: 2006-12-14 20:12:23
Message-ID: 200612141212.24521.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter,

> PostgreSQL only allows a trigger action of "call this function", so in
> the SQL standard context that would mean we'd need to check the EXECUTE
> privilege of the owner of the trigger. The trick is figuring out who
> the owner is. If it's the owner of the table, then TRIGGER privilege
> is effectively total control over the owner of the table. If it's
> whoever created the trigger, it might be useful, but I don't see how
> that is compatible with the intent of the SQL standard.

If that's the case, then a separate TRIGGER priveledge would seem to be
superfluous.

One thing to think about, though; our model allows granting ALTER
privelidge on a table to roles other than the table owner. It would seem
kind of inconsistent to be able to grant non-owner roles the ability to
drop a column, but restrict only the owner to adding a trigger. For one
thing, if you have a non-owner role which has ALTER permission and wants
to add an FK, how would that work?

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-12-14 21:20:58 Re: Security leak with trigger functions?
Previous Message Shane Ambler 2006-12-14 19:37:19 Re: libpq.a in a universal binary