| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw, dblink, and CREATE SUBSCRIPTION security |
| Date: | 2023-03-30 12:58:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaHpas6YcM95WJLKag=WJjZO7F8WbVEgmq0HgxZn8_+Aw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:47 PM Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
> Okay, but this is walking back from the network example you just
> described upthread. Do you still consider that in scope, or...?
Sorry, I don't know which example you mean.
> > If machines B and C aren't under our control such that we can
> > configure them that way, then the configuration is fundamentally
> > insecure in a way that we can't really fix.
>
> Here's probably our biggest point of contention. You're unlikely to
> convince me that this is the DBA's fault.
>
> If machines B and C aren't under our control, then our *protocol* is
> fundamentally insecure in a way that we have the ability to fix, in a
> way that's already been characterized in security literature.
I guess I wouldn't have a problem blaming the DBA here, but you seem
to be telling me that the security literature has settled on another
kind of approach, and I'm not in a position to dispute that. It still
feels weird to me, though.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-03-30 13:11:50 | Re: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Nikita Malakhov | 2023-03-30 12:16:39 | Re: JsonPath version bits |