Re: Post-CVE Wishlist

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Post-CVE Wishlist
Date: 2021-11-24 19:53:29
Message-ID: 187118.1637783609@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think it would take an overwhelming amount of evidence to convince
> the project to remove support for the current method. One or even two
> or three high-severity bugs will probably not convince the project to
> do more than spend more studying that code and trying to tighten
> things up in a systematic way.

One other point to be made here is that it seems like a stretch to call
these particular bugs "high-severity". Given what we learned about
the difficulty of exploiting the libpq bug, and the certainty that any
other clients sharing the issue would have their own idiosyncrasies
necessitating a custom-designed attack, I rather doubt that we're going
to hear of anybody trying to exploit the issue in the field.

(By no means do I suggest that these bugs aren't worth fixing when we
find them. But so far they seem very easy to fix. So moving mountains
to design out just this one type of bug doesn't seem like a great use
of our finite earth-moving capacity.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2021-11-24 19:56:54 Re: Post-CVE Wishlist
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-11-24 19:44:38 Re: Split xlog.c