From: | Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Quiroga\, Damian" <damian(dot)quiroga(at)intel(dot)com>, "pgsql-general\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hiding name and version |
Date: | 2015-09-18 02:02:30 |
Message-ID: | 86mvwktrgp.fsf@jerry.enova.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
>> On 09/17/2015 10:32 AM, Quiroga, Damian wrote:
>>> Is it possible to prevent users from running the version function or
>>> all system information functions? If so, how?
>
>> You could probably revoke access to the function(s) (I haven't tried it
>> because it seems very silly).
>
> I believe revoking public execute access would work, but I concur that
> this specific request seems entirely pointless. Anyone with SQL-level
> access to the server, and a copy of the release notes, can soon determine
> what version they are talking to by testing for the presence or absence of
> assorted features and bugs.
>
> Keep in mind also that pg_dump or pg_upgrade would not preserve such
> alterations to system functions.
And let's not forget...
show server_version or server_version_num;
Oh, and interactive psql without -q prints server version in the banner :-)
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres(dot)consulting(at)comcast(dot)net
p: 312.241.7800
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kong Man | 2015-09-18 02:08:08 | search_path not reloaded via unix socket connections |
Previous Message | Michael Chau | 2015-09-18 00:37:09 | Re: Broken primary key after backup restore. |