Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in
Date: 2002-08-20 03:40:22
Message-ID: 3D61BA26.D97FBE91@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > Hang on, you seem to be suggesting we release a major new upgrade, with
> > major new functionality, knowing it contains a way to trivially crash
> > the backend.
>
> This particular hole has been in *every* release since Postgres 1.01.

How many releases have we known about this and still done a major
release?

> I'm really not interested in responding to any argument that we cannot
> release 7.3 until we have fixed everything that could be labeled a DOS
> threat. 7.3 already contains a bunch of bug fixes; shall we postpone
> releasing those because there are other unfixed bugs?

How trivial are they to exploit?

For example, thinking about something like the various ISP's around who
host PostgreSQL databases; how much effort would it take to fix the
vulnerabilities that let someone with remote access, but no ability to
run a "trusted" language, take out the backend?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> regards, tom lane

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-20 03:47:30 Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-20 03:27:43 Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in