On Sunday 01 July 2007 17:59, Joe Conway wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
> > Robert Treat wrote:
> >>>> Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> >>> Well certainly dbi-link has the exact same issue.
> >>
> >> dbi-link only works in plperlu, so you've already decided your superuser
> >> only.
> >
> > How so -- it is fundamentally no different than dblink, which is C
> > language (also untrusted).
> >
> > I think the issue is that once the superuser creates said functions,
> > usage of the functions is automatically granted to PUBLIC, no? Being an
> > untrusted language just means that it takes a superuser to create the
> > functions using that language, not to use the functions themselves.
>
> In fact, this misconception can prove dangerous in other ways. From the
> docs:
>
> CREATE FUNCTION badfunc() RETURNS integer AS $$
> my $tmpfile = "/tmp/badfile";
> open my $fh, '>', $tmpfile
> or elog(ERROR, qq{could not open the file "$tmpfile": $!});
> print $fh "Testing writing to a file\n";
> close $fh or elog(ERROR, qq{could not close the file "$tmpfile": $!});
> return 1;
> $$ LANGUAGE plperlu;
>
> select usename, usesuper from pg_shadow;
> usename | usesuper
> ----------+----------
> postgres | t
> foo | f
> (2 rows)
>
> contrib_regression=# \c - foo
> You are now connected to database "contrib_regression" as user "foo".
> contrib_regression=> select badfunc();
> badfunc
> ---------
> 1
> (1 row)
>
> So anyone thinking that just because a language is untrusted means that
> they don't need to be careful, is mistaken.
>
lol... you're absolutly correct, I wasn't thinking clearly earlier. I took a
3-hour nap shortly after my last email, I probably should have taken it
before :-)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(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
