From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Moon, Insung" <tsukiwamoon(dot)pgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Exposure related to GUC value of ssl_passphrase_command |
Date: | 2020-02-12 17:37:29 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHBpkaMYkaYfFGbMO9sLrQ=2WyH3yB3uPCfEKsjUQjLzw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 4:24 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:15 PM Moon, Insung <tsukiwamoon(dot)pgsql(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Deal Hackers.
> >
> > The value of ssl_passphrase_command is set so that an external command
> > is called when the passphrase for decrypting an SSL file such as a
> > private key is obtained.
> > Therefore, easily set to work with echo "passphrase" or call to
> > another get of passphrase application.
> >
> > I think that this GUC value doesn't contain very sensitive data,
> > but just in case, it's dangerous to be visible to all users.
> > I think do not possible these cases, but if a used echo external
> > commands or another external command, know what application used to
> > get the password, maybe we can't be convinced that there's the safety
> > of using abuse by backtracking on applications.
> > So I think to the need only superusers or users with the default role
> > of pg_read_all_settings should see these values.
> >
> > Patch is very simple.
> > How do you think about my thoughts like this?
>
> I'm hardly an expert on this topic, but reading this blog post about
> ssl_passphrase_command:
>
> https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/blog/postgresql-passphrase-protected-ssl-keys-systemd/
>
> which mentions that some users might go with the very naive
> configuration such as:
>
> ssl_passphrase_command = 'echo "secret"'
>
> maybe it makes sense to protect its value from everyone but superusers.
>
> So +1.
Seems this proposal is reasonable.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2020-02-12 17:49:14 | Re: In PG12, query with float calculations is slower than PG11 |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2020-02-12 17:32:27 | Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? |