Re: pgsql: Revoke PUBLIC CREATE from public schema, now owned by pg_databas - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pgsql: Revoke PUBLIC CREATE from public schema, now owned by pg_databas
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZGXNN7eE3tqneLFJpP1OUJtu1LRRf2kKYR=9_+byAiMA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql: Revoke PUBLIC CREATE from public schema, now owned by pg_databas  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 5:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Also, I'd like to structure things so that the first para covers what
> you need to know in a clean v15+ installation, and details that only
> apply in upgrade scenarios are in the second para.  The upgrade scenario
> is going to be interesting to fewer and fewer people over time, so let's
> not clutter the lede with it.

Right, that was my main feeling about this.

> So maybe about like this?
>
>     Constrain ordinary users to user-private schemas.  To implement
>     this pattern, for every user needing to create non-temporary
>     objects, create a schema with the same name as that user.  (Recall
>     that the default search path starts with $user, which resolves to
>     the user name. Therefore, if each user has a separate schema, they
>     access their own schemas by default.)  Also ensure that no other
>     schemas have public CREATE privileges.  This pattern is a secure
>     schema usage pattern unless an untrusted user is the database
>     owner or holds the CREATEROLE privilege, in which case no secure
>     schema usage pattern exists.
>
>     In PostgreSQL 15 and later, the default configuration supports
>     this usage pattern.  In prior versions, or when using a database
>     that has been upgraded from a prior version, you will need to
>     remove the public CREATE privilege from the public schema (issue
>     REVOKE CREATE ON SCHEMA public FROM PUBLIC).  Then consider
>     auditing the public schema for objects named like objects in
>     schema pg_catalog.
>
> This is close to what Robert wrote, but not exactly the same,
> so probably it will make neither of you happy ;-)

I haven't looked at how it's different from what I wrote exactly, but
it seems fine to me.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans