Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Kerberos is not affected either, because the server does not get a copy
of the ticket. In theory it could be affected if the server requested a
delegation enabled ticket, and exported it so it could be used, but none
of these are done.
That's quite a stretch even there, imv anyway... It'd have to be put
somewhere a backend connecting would think to look for it, given that
the user can't change the environment variables and whatnot (I don't
think) of the backend process...
Hmm. I think what you are both saying is that if the remote end wants
Kerberos auth then you would expect a dblink connection to always fail.
If so, then we still seem to be down to the conclusion that there
are only three kinds of dblink connection:
* those that require a password;
* those that don't work;
* those that are insecure.
Would it be sensible to change dblink so that unless invoked by a
superuser, it fails any connection attempt in which no password is
demanded? I am not sure that this is possible without changes to libpq;
but ignoring implementation difficulties, is this a sane idea from
the standpoint of security and usability?
Possibly so. Remember that dblink is simply a libpq client. Doesn't that
mean that similar (although likely less severe) issues affect other
libpq clients executing locally, such as php or perl-dbi clients?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly