Re: dblink connection security - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: dblink connection security
Date
Msg-id 5502.1183833063@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dblink connection security  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> One question: should we provide the SECURITY DEFINER functions with
> revoked privileges or just mention that in the docs? I was thinking
> something along the lines of the following even for the backpatched version:

Hmm.  I guess the advantage of providing these pre-made is that it would
standardize the names to use for them, which seems like a good thing.
I'm not sure about the point of back-patching, though, since again
you're not going to be affecting the content of existing installations.

> REVOKE execute ON FUNCTION dblink_connect_u (text) FROM public;
> REVOKE execute ON FUNCTION dblink_connect_u (text, text) FROM public;

I'd write that as REVOKE ALL just to be future-proof.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Zdenek Kotala
Date:
Subject: Re: script binaries renaming
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: script binaries renaming