Re: Creating a role with read only privileges but user is allowed to change password

From: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
To: Ravi Roy <ravi(dot)aroy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Creating a role with read only privileges but user is allowed to change password
Date: 2014-05-11 18:09:59
Message-ID: 536FBCF7.4010903@aklaver.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 05/11/2014 10:17 AM, Ravi Roy wrote:
> Thanks a lot Tom, it worked by putting off the read only mode to off
> before changing the password and putting it on again.
>
>> SET default_transaction_read_only = off;
>
> Worked for me..

It works but the point Tom was making is here:

"You realize, I hope, that breaking out of that restriction is no harder
than issuing

SET default_transaction_read_only = off;

or even

BEGIN TRANSACTION READ WRITE;

So that ALTER ROLE might be of some use as a protection against accidental
changes, but it's certainly no form of security restriction. (What you
probably want to do instead of this is make sure the role doesn't have
select/update/delete privileges for any of your tables.)
"

Given that in your original post you said:

"Because I wanted this role to readonly (can not change anything in DB
but only view)."

you might want to rethink what you are doing.

>
> Many thanks to you!
>
> Regards
> Ravi

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G Johnston 2014-05-11 20:01:00 Re: Partitioning such that key field of inherited tables no longer retains any selectivity
Previous Message Tim Kane 2014-05-11 18:07:01 Re: Re: Partitioning such that key field of inherited tables no longer retains any selectivity