On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 14:25:52 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Victor Wagner <vitus@wagner.pp.ru> writes:
> > Really, if this response is sent after backend has been forked,
> > problem probably can be easily fixed better way - StartupMessage
> > contain information about desired client encoding, so this
> > information just should be processed earlier than any other
> > information from this message, which can cause errors (such as
> > database name).
>
> I think that's wishful thinking. There will *always* be errors that
> come out before we can examine the contents of the startup message.
> Moreover, until we've done authentication, we should be very wary of
> applying client-specified settings at all: they might be malicious.
I think that this case can be an exception from the rule "don't apply
settings from the untrusted source".
Let's consider possible threat model:
1. We anyway parse StartupMessage before authentication. There is
nothing we can do with it, so parser should be robust enough, to handle
untrusted input. As I can see from the quick glance, it is.
2. When encoding name is parsed, it is used to search in the array of
supported encoding. No possible attack here - either it is valid or not.
3. As far as I know, we don't allow client to change language, only
encoding, so it is not even possible that attacker could make messages
in the log unreadable for the system administartor.
So, if we would fix the problem, reported by Peter Eisentraut at the
begining of this thread, and fall back to untranslated messages
whenever client-requested encoding is unable to represent messages in
the server default language, this solution, would be not worse than
your solution.
There would be fallback to C locale in any case of doubt, but in the
case when NLS messages can be made readable, they would be readable.
Really, there is at least one case, when fallback to C locale should be
done unconditionally - a CancelRequest. In this case client cannot send
an encoding, so C locale should be used.
As far as I understand it is not the case with SSLRequest. Although it
doesn't contain encoding information as well as CancelRequest, errors
in subsequent SSL negotiations would be reported by client-side SSL
libraries, not by server.
--
>
> regards, tom lane
