Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions
Date: 2024-06-12 19:10:29
Message-ID: 61c1455b17cd0e67e087cb09e55c45d8852a1ede.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2024-06-12 at 12:13 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > Alternatively, we could leverage the extension dependency
> > information
> > to determine whether the function is created by an extension or
> > not.
>
> That will be simpler. We do that sort of thing for identity
> sequences. So there's a precedent to do that kind of stuff. 

I did not look at the details, but +1 for using information we already
have. There's a little bit of extra work to resolve it, but thanks to
the search_path cache it should only need to be done once per unique
search_path setting per session.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-06-12 19:11:53 Re: On disable_cost
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-06-12 19:08:14 Re: Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter?