From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2013-11-23 05:15:09 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KBNNF1_du5h_aXN9ZzjLKX5h1Re=bFMfSNNPcfuurftw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Here what I have in mind is that:
>>
>> Why would you make psql behave differently from our other command-line
>> clients?
>
> No, psql should not behave different from other clients. Sorry, I
> was under assumption that for other programs we will not take backend
> executable
> path.
> One other thing which is not clear to me is that how by calling
> some special/new API we can ensure that the path provided by user is
> a valid path, are we going to validate file given in
> 'standalone_backend' switch in some way?
Here, do we mean that if user specifies special switch, then
psql/pg_dump will call new API (eg. PQstartSingleUser(dsn)) which
will use postgres from same bin directory they are in, rather than
using from standalone_backend.
Can we consider this as a way to proceed for this patch?
On a side note, today while reading what other software's does to
protect them from such a security threat, I came across this link
(http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/binaryprotection/index.html)
which suggests to have encrypted binaries. The use for encrypted
binaries is somewhat similar to what we discussed as a security threat
in this mail thread. Some text from link which made me think that
this is relevant.
For example, "one could turn the requirement around and say that a
given system must not run any binaries unless they are from a
certain source (or set of sources). This could be used to create an
admission-control mechanism for executables, which in turn could
be used in defending against malware. In a draconian managed
environment, it might be desired to limit program execution on managed
systems to a predefined set of programs—nothing else will execute."
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-11-23 06:32:14 | Re: Server is not getting started with log level as debug5 on master after commit 3147ac |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-23 05:10:05 | Re: Building on S390 |