Re: Installing PostgreSQL as "postgress" versus "root" Debate!

Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thursday 13 January 2005 10:52 am, Goulet, Dick wrote:
> > Doug,
> >
> > OK, Assume that the binaries are installed under root, but a
> > hacker cracks PostGres, what is to stop him/her from trashing all of the
> > database files in the first place? Their not owned by root. Installing
> > malware, whether it's actual code or destroying/defacing files causes
> > similar if not identical problems. At least their restricted to the
> > postgres user. And in my book the executables are of zero value whereas
> > the data files, and their contained data, are of infinite value. So
> > under your scheme we're protecting the least valuable part of the
> > system at the expense of the most valuable.
>
> So where is the difference? If all executables AND the data is under the
> postgres account - an intruder hacking the postgres account would still be
> able to destroy your data.

To me the difference is that if you your postgres account is hacked and
you installed as root you can delete your /data and start over knowing
the rest of your install is OK. If your binaries are owned by postgres,
you have to reinstall too.

Of course you might as well reinstall anyway but there is a difference
in knowing the state of the non-/data files.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073