Re: 8.4 release planning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From KaiGai Kohei
Subject Re: 8.4 release planning
Date
Msg-id 498032C8.4010105@kaigai.gr.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.4 release planning  (Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Richard Huxton wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> Where I suspect this is all is going to settle down into is that if 1)
>> the SE GUC is on and 2) one of the tables in a join has rows filtered,
>> then you can expect that a) it's possible that the result will leak
>> information, which certainly need to be documented, 
> 
> As far as I can tell this is the case however you hide the information.
> If you implemented it with views you'll have the same issue. If you hide
> the existence of project p_id="TOPSECRET01" and people can run inserts
> then they can spot it. Likewise, it you have fkey references to the row
> then deletions can be used to spot it.
> 
It is a covert channel discussion.
At least, SE-PostgreSQL does not care about hiding its existence,
so it does not prevent user to infer the existence of a tuple
with same key value, using PK confliction.
(Please note that he must have a info about PK value or lucky
to make a key confliction.)
But, it enables to prevent unclassified user to read the tuple,
and him to know an info the tuple contains "p_id=TOPSECRET01" as
a result of this read action.

Thanks,
-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Column privileges for system catalogs
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Commitfest infrastructure (was Re: 8.4 release planning)