On 2022/01/25 8:18, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 24, 2022, at 2:21 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>
>> Superuser is a problem specifically because it gives people access to do absolutely anything, both for security and
safetyconcerns. Disallowing a way to curtail that same risk when it comes to role ownership invites exactly those same
problems.
>
> Before the patch, users with CREATEROLE can do mischief. After the patch, users with CREATEROLE can do mischief.
Thedifference is that the mischief that can be done after the patch is a proper subset of the mischief that can be done
beforethe patch. (Counter-examples highly welcome.)
>
> Specifically, I claim that before the patch, non-superuser "bob" with CREATEROLE can interfere with *any*
non-superuser. After the patch, non-superuser "bob" with CREATEROLE can interfere with *some* non-superusers;
specifically,with non-superusers he created himself, or which have had ownership transferred to him.
>
> Restricting the scope of bob's mischief is a huge win, in my view.
+1
One of "mischiefs" I'm thinking problematic is that users with CREATEROLE can give any predefined role that they don't
have,to other users including themselves. For example, users with CREATEROLE can give pg_execute_server_program to
themselvesand run any OS commands by COPY PROGRAM. This would be an issue when providing something like PostgreSQL
cloudservice that wants to prevent end users from running OS commands but allow them to create/drop roles. Does the
proposedpatch fix also this issue?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
