Re: plperl Safe restrictions

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> The question in my mind is "What are we protecting against?" ISTM it is
> the use of the pl as a vector to attack the machine and postgres. Does a
> segfault come into that category? After all, isn't it one of postgres's
> strengths that we can survive individual backends crashing?

Yeah, but a repeatable segfault certainly is an adequate tool for a
denial-of-service attack, since it takes out everyone else's sessions
along with your own. A possibly larger objection is how sure can you be
that the effects will *only* be a segfault, and not say the ability to
execute some user-injected machine code.

regards, tom lane