From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Redact user password on pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2025-02-21 16:57:44 |
Message-ID: | 3139897.1740157064@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 2025-02-21 Fr 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Please see previous threads about hiding this sort of information,
>> most recently [1]. It's a slippery slope for which there are no
>> real fixes, and even partial fixes like this one are horrid kluges.
> I don't think this is such a terrible kluge. I think it's different from
> the server log case, which after all requires access to the server file
> system to exploit.
Well, pg_stat_statements requires pg_read_all_stats membership before
it will show you query text, so there is a permissions gate to pass
here too. (I think the description of that role in user-manag.sgml
is perhaps not sufficiently explicit about how much power it has;
it's not apparent that it lets you see other sessions' queries.)
But the real reason that I'm allergic to this idea is that it sets
a precedent that we will attempt to hide such information. Once
we do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that leakage paths
like the postmaster log or pg_stat_activity aren't security bugs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2025-02-21 17:07:57 | Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-02-21 16:49:22 | Re: TAP test started using meson, can get a tcp port already used by another test. |