From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Steven Siebert <smsiebe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #10680: LDAP bind password leaks to log on failed authentication |
Date: | 2014-06-19 14:57:30 |
Message-ID: | 31008.1403189850@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Steven Siebert <smsiebe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Agreed. In our situation (government), though, we must export out
> logs to enterprise logging services where auditors (that wouldn't
> otherwise have access to the server/process) would be able to see it.
The thing is that the postmaster logs will certainly contain all manner
of sensitive information. A few examples:
* Occasionally, people mess up and enter their username as their password
and vice versa. Logging of connection failures, or indeed mere logging of
error messages, will therefore expose their password --- admittedly, not
identified as such, but if you see a subsequent successful connection you
know whose it was.
* Logging of queries is likely to expose sensitive user data in the form
of constants in the queries, eg "INSERT INTO customers (name, address,
credit_card_number) VALUES (...)". Even if you're not logging all
queries, failed queries could still expose such data.
* An example pretty directly connected to yours is that people have
complained about how statement logging will capture "ALTER USER joe
WITH PASSWORD 'joes-new-password'".
So basically, making the logs safe to show to untrusted auditors is a
fool's errand. You need to deal with this problem in some other,
nontechnical, way. IOW, why exactly don't you trust the auditors,
and how will you fix that?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steven Siebert | 2014-06-19 15:33:01 | Re: BUG #10680: LDAP bind password leaks to log on failed authentication |
Previous Message | gotar | 2014-06-19 14:54:42 | BUG #10703: Set returning function type mismatch get's propagated despite explicit casting |