Re: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: Mark Volpe <volpe(dot)mark(at)epa(dot)gov>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Date: 2001-06-25 15:25:11
Message-ID: 15800.993482711@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> Without making the "definer" need an additional grant for creating such
> a function, it would be like giving him all the privs he has
> "with grant option".

Hmm ... interesting analogy, but does it hold water? The GRANT OPTION
stuff implies the right to pass on your privileges to someone else
*permanently*. A setuid function only lets someone else do the same
things you can do at the time it is called. There's nothing there that
couldn't be done by having the one user ask the other to do something
using an outside-the-database communication channel. So I really don't
see a security issue.

I also don't see any privilege of this type in SQL92 (which does have
the concept of setuid functions, in the form of modules).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Barry Lind 2001-06-25 15:42:47 Re: [HACKERS] Instrumenting and Logging in JDBC
Previous Message Joe Conway 2001-06-25 15:17:24 Fw: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Barry Lind 2001-06-25 15:39:22 Re: [ADMIN] High memory usage [PATCH]
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2001-06-25 15:00:37 AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions