| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: AW: "setuid" functions, a solution to the RI privil ege problem |
| Date: | 2000-09-18 19:56:01 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0009181159260.380-100000@peter |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB writes:
> Since you can write extensions to PostgreSQL that reach far into the OS,
> it does make sense to execute those extensions under a "non priviledged"
> user, and not postgres.
Agreed.
> This OS user would somehow be tied to the username that the client
> passes as his credentials (and that we trust to be authenticated).
Not agreed. It's a feature, not an accident, that client user names,
server OS user names, and database user names are independent. The mapping
of database user names to server OS user names needs to have a separate
mapping and authentication system, which could probably be similar to the
existing client authentication, but still separate.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-09-18 19:57:03 | Re: ascii to character conversion in postgres |
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-09-18 18:17:19 | Re: Library versioning |