Re: PG16.1 security breach?

From: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG16.1 security breach?
Date: 2024-06-12 21:37:22
Message-ID: CANzqJaCZ_+UKf5g5qW8XDzVQO08yhKgJtr-T3vD0SAf5jLF0FA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 4:36 PM David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 2:21 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
> wrote:
>
>> > How is it that the default privilege granted to public doesn’t seem to
>> care who the object creator
>> > is yet when revoking the grant one supposedly can only do so within the
>> scope of a single role?
>>
>> I don't understand what you wrote. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES also only
>> applies to objects
>> created by a single role when you grant default privileges.
>>
>>
> I think my point is that a paragraph like the following may be a useful
> addition:
>
> If one wishes to remove the default privilege granted to public to execute
> all newly created procedures it is necessary to revoke that privilege for
> every superuser in the system
>

That seems... excessive. You can revoke other privs from public (can't
you?), so why seemingly only do procedures/functions have this difficulty.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Johnson 2024-06-12 21:48:26 Re: UPDATE with multiple WHERE conditions
Previous Message Rich Shepard 2024-06-12 21:36:51 Re: Defining columns for INSERT statements