From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomasz Ostrowski <tometzky(at)batory(dot)org(dot)pl>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Spoofing as the postmaster |
Date: | 2007-12-23 22:18:43 |
Message-ID: | 476EDEC3.6080001@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomasz Ostrowski <tometzky(at)batory(dot)org(dot)pl> writes:
>> So I'm not very fond of this "insecure by default, it's your problem
>> to make it secure" attitude. I'm the one who reported this.
>
> IIRC, you started out your argument by also saying that we had to move
> the TCP socket to the reserved range, so as to prevent the equivalent
> problem in the TCP case. (And, given the number of clients such as
> JDBC that can only connect via TCP, it certainly seems there's little
> point in changing the socket case if we don't change the TCP case.)
It should also be noted that not all operating systems even have the
concept of a reserved range of ports.
> Fundamentally these are man-in-the-middle attacks, and the only real
> solution is mutual authentication. Pretending that some quick-fix
> change eliminates that class of problem is a recipe for building systems
> that are less secure, not more so.
And SSL can certainly do that. But I can agree that our SSL
documentation could be much clearer on how to do things, and what's a
best practice :-)
Instead of just adding a section on "preventing spoofing attacks",
perhaps what we really need is a general chapter on how to secure your
system and what's best practices. Which would also cover things like
don't run everything as superuser etc (which is a much more likely
problem to be seen in deployments)
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-23 22:42:02 | Re: Spoofing as the postmaster |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-12-23 22:18:28 | Re: Spoofing as the postmaster |