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

Re: [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 Win32 observations

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,"Justin Wyer" <justin(at)isogo(dot)co(dot)za>,"postgresql" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 Win32 observations
Date: 2004-08-23 08:22:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net] 
> Sent: 23 August 2004 08:56
> To: Dave Page; Justin Wyer; postgresql
> Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 
> Win32 observations
> For one, there is no security on the files. We take explicit 
> steps to ensure the security of the files against the pg 
> service account on NTFS (deny-write permissions on everything 
> except the PGDATA directory). This step cannot be done on 
> FAT, obviously. 

No, but anyone running on FAT already knows that. Our concern is making
sure that PostgreSQL cannot be used as an attack route, and ensuring
that data is stored reliably. Anything beyond that is starting to become
intrusive imo.

> Oh, and losing entire .EXE's *does* happen on FAT. I've seen 
> directories that themselves were touched only by read-only 
> operations lose files on FAT (not during normal operation, 
> but in case of a crash something can apparantly hapepn). But 
> the security part is the main reason for me.

Yes, I don't deny it can happen. All I'm saying is that if it does, then
there are probably more pressing failures such as a disk failure just
around the corner.

Regards, Dave.

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-08-23 08:27:54
Subject: Re: [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 Win32 observations
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-08-23 08:17:18
Subject: Re: Terminal Server issues

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