Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Date: 2014-03-01 18:09:16
Message-ID: 5312224C.2080607@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 03/01/2014 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

>
> In the case of Unix systems, there is a *far* simpler and more portable
> solution technique, which is to tell the test postmaster to put its socket
> in some non-world-accessible directory created by the test scaffolding.

+1 - I'm all for KISS.

>
> Of course that doesn't work for Windows, which is why we looked at the
> random-password solution. But I wonder whether we shouldn't use the
> nonstandard-socket-location approach everywhere else, and only use random
> passwords on Windows. That would greatly reduce the number of cases to
> worry about for portability of the password-generation code; and perhaps
> we could also push the crypto issue into reliance on some Windows-supplied
> functionality (though I'm just speculating about that part).

See for example
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379942%28v=vs.85%29.aspx>

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2014-03-01 18:20:52 Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-03-01 17:29:38 Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)