Re: Commitfest 2021-11 Patch Triage - Part 2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Commitfest 2021-11 Patch Triage - Part 2
Date: 2021-11-14 19:26:33
Message-ID: 2018784.1636917993@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Attackers aren't likely to have the kind of isolated control over the
> data in the WAL stream (which is a combination of data from lots of
> ongoing activity in the system and isn't likely to be exactly what the
> attacker supplied at some higher level anyway) and the ability to read
> and analyze the WAL stream from a primary to a replica to be able to
> effectively attack it.

Yeah, I concur with that so far as WAL data goes. A hypothetical attacker
will not have control over xact IDs, tuple TIDs, etc, which will add
enough entropy to the stream that extracting data payloads seems pretty
infeasible.

My concern upthread was about client-session connections, where such
mitigation doesn't apply. (I wonder a bit about logical-replication
streams, too.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-11-14 19:50:56 Re: Emit a warning if the extension's GUC is set incorrectly
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2021-11-14 19:13:12 Re: Commitfest 2021-11 Patch Triage - Part 2