From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Date: | 2022-01-08 17:37:49 |
Message-ID: | 1502449.1641663469@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. Are you saying that, to logically
> replay a simple DELETE, the subscription owner should have SELECT
> privileges on the destination table?
We consider that DELETE WHERE <condition> requires SELECT privilege
on the column(s) read by the <condition>. I suppose that the point
here is to enforce the same privilege checks that occur in normal
SQL operation, so yes.
> Is there a way that a subscription owner could somehow exploit a DELETE
> privilege to see the contents of a table on which they have no SELECT
> privileges?
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM tab WHERE col = 'foo';
-- note deletion count
ROLLBACK;
Now you have some information about whether "col" contains 'foo'.
Admittedly, it might be a pretty low-bandwidth way to extract data,
but we still regard it as a privilege issue.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-08 17:57:18 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-01-08 17:14:59 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |