| From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Date: | 2009-09-25 01:27:42 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.BSO.2.00.0909242126100.3560@leary.csoft.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
>> + if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
>
> BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
> target ports below 1024.
Restricting the target port seems like a bad idea. What about a firewall
(or ssh tunnel) that did port forwarding. What PG binds to and what a
client connects to may not be the same thing.
Kris Jurka
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-25 01:31:42 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-09-25 01:24:34 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-25 01:31:42 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-09-25 01:24:34 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |