Re: Application name patch - v2

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v2
Date: 2009-10-19 08:42:49
Message-ID: 4ADC2689.1020300@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2009/10/19 Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> I dislike write access to app name guc for user too. It's not safe.
>>> Maybe only super user can do it?
>>>
>> That'll render it pretty useless, as most applications wouldn't then
>> be able to set/reset it when it makes sense to do so.
>>
>
> But application can do it simply via connection string, no? Mostly
> applications has connection string in configuration, so I don't see
> problem there. And if I would to allow access, then I could to wrap
> setting to security definer function.
>
> I see this as security hole. It allows special SQL injection.
>
>

How is it any more a security hole than any other setting that the user
can alter with an arbitrary string value (e.g. custom options)?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2009-10-19 08:44:46 Re: Application name patch - v2
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2009-10-19 08:36:26 Re: Application name patch - v2