On 4/14/21 2:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Could we hack things so that extension scripts are only allowed to
>>> reference objects created (a) by the system, (b) earlier in the
>>> same script, or (c) owned by one of the declared prerequisite
>>> extensions? Seems like that might provide a pretty bulletproof
>>> defense against trojan-horse objects, though I'm not sure how much
>>> of a pain it'd be to implement.
>> That doesn't seem like a crazy idea, but the previous idea of having
>> some magic syntax that means "the schema where extension FOO is" seems
>> like it might be easier to implement and more generally useful.
> I think that's definitely useful, but it's not a fix for the
> reference-capture problem unless you care to assume that the other
> extension's schema is free of trojan-horse objects. So I'm thinking
> that we really ought to pursue both ideas.
>
> This may mean that squeezing these contrib changes into v14 is a lost
> cause. We certainly shouldn't try to do what I suggest above for
> v14; but without it, these changes are just moving the security
> issue to a different place rather than eradicating it completely.
>
>
Is there anything else we should be doing along the eat your own dogfood
line that don't have these security implications?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
