Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [INTERFACES] pg_pwd

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Sergio A(dot) Kessler" <ser(at)perio(dot)unlp(dot)edu(dot)ar>
Cc: "pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] pg_pwd
Date: 1999-11-20 22:41:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> > in rh6.1 /var/lib/pgsql is 755 (and no, I haven't changed anything)
> > can you spell "2_KM_DIAMETER_HOLE" ?
> In a standard setup, pg_pwd is inside .../pgsql/data which is mode 700.
> Have the RH guys really blown it this badly?  (Lamar?)

PGDATA is in fact 755 in the RPM installation.  pg_pwd is the only file 666
under this directory.

Since pg_pwd is not very well documented, it is kind of hard to figure out
the permissions -- however, it is simple enough to issue a security advisory
for people to chmod 0700 /var/lib/pgsql.

The change to mode 0700 for PGDATA (which is moving in the future) will be made
in future RPM's.  Again, no other file under /var/lib/pgsql under RH6.1 has
group or world permissions EXCEPT pg_pwd.

And yes, this IS a glaring security hole, IF the user postgres has a postgres
password.  Just WHY is pg_pwd mode 666 in the first place??

Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 1999-11-20 22:57:58
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] pg_pwd
Previous:From: Peter MountDate: 1999-11-20 11:31:34
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC compliancy question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group