Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Date: 2014-03-05 00:10:27
Message-ID: 20140305001027.GA28321@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 01:35:45PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> Having that said, I can appreciate the value of tightening the socket mode for
> a bit of *extra* safety:
>
> --- a/src/test/regress/pg_regress.c
> +++ b/src/test/regress/pg_regress.c
> @@ -2299,4 +2299,5 @@ regression_main(int argc, char *argv[], init_function ifunc, test_function tfunc
> fputs("\n# Configuration added by pg_regress\n\n", pg_conf);
> fputs("max_prepared_transactions = 2\n", pg_conf);
> + fputs("unix_socket_permissions = 0700\n", pg_conf);

Pg_upgrade has this exact same problem, and take the same approach. You
might want to look in pg_upgrade/server.c.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Haribabu Kommi 2014-03-05 01:34:00 Re: The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-03-04 23:26:02 Re: Changeset Extraction v7.9.1