From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: let's disallow ALTER ROLE bootstrap_superuser NOSUPERUSER |
Date: | 2022-07-21 16:28:07 |
Message-ID: | 39752.1658420887@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Currently, it's possible to remove the rolissuper bit from the
> bootstrap superuser, but this leaves that user - and the system in
> general - in an odd state. The bootstrap user continues to own all of
> the objects it owned before, e.g. all of the system catalogs. Direct
> DML on system catalogs is blocked by pg_class_aclmask_ext(), but it's
> possible to do things like rename a system function out of the way and
> create a new function with the same signature. Therefore, creating a
> new superuser and making the original one a non-superuser is probably
> not viable from a security perspective, because anyone who gained
> access to that role would likely have little difficulty mounting a
> Trojan horse attack against the current superusers.
True, but what if the idea is to have *no* superusers? I seem
to recall people being interested in setups like that.
On the whole I don't have any objection to your proposal, I just
worry that somebody else will.
Of course there's always "UPDATE pg_authid SET rolsuper = false",
which makes it absolutely clear that you're breaking the glass cover.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-07-21 16:41:04 | Re: let's disallow ALTER ROLE bootstrap_superuser NOSUPERUSER |
Previous Message | Sergey Dudoladov | 2022-07-21 16:22:51 | Re: Add connection active, idle time to pg_stat_activity |