From: | Sergiy Vyshnevetskiy <serg(at)vostok(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: crypting prosrc in pg_proc |
Date: | 2007-08-10 20:03:10 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0708102253150.28860@uanet.vostok.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Obfuscation doesn't really work, it just makes big wigs in companies
>> *think* it's not easily reversible.
>>
>> There is no real security. With enough time and experience, anything
>> can be broken.
>
> But that said, I wonder if having something may be useful legally for some
> users.
>
> If someone just went and did "select * from pg_proc" they could claim they
> weren't violating their EULA or any protection you had put in place. If they
> went through the trouble having to de-obfuscate it then you would have a
> strong DMCA claim in the US.
We can split pg_proc into pg_procinfo and pg_procsrc.
pg_procinfo contains all information about function except source code and
is readable to all.
pg_procsrc has the source and readable only to system and superusers.
pg_proc is a view that joins the two. If database developer wants to limit
user access, they add conditions to the view as necessary, e.g.
proowner in ('postgres',current_user)
or whatever they want.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-10 21:34:07 | Re: change name of redirect_stderr? |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-08-10 19:59:39 | Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure |