On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:29 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. It's still possible for a CREATEROLE user to hand out role
> attributes that they don't possess. The new prohibitions in
> cf5eb37c5ee0cc54c80d95c1695d7fca1f7c68cb prevent a CREATEROLE user
> from handing out membership in a role on which they lack sufficient
> permissions, but they don't prevent a CREATEROLE user who lacks
> CREATEDB from creating a new user who does have CREATEDB. I think we
> should subject the CREATEDB, REPLICATION, and BYPASSRLS attributes to
> the same rule that we now use for role memberships: you've got to have
> the property in order to give it to someone else. In the case of
> CREATEDB, this would tighten the current rules, which allow you to
> give out CREATEDB without having it. In the case of REPLICATION and
> BYPASSRLS, this would liberalize the current rules: right now, a
> CREATEROLE user cannot give REPLICATION or BYPASSRLS to another user
> even if they possess those attributes.
>
> This proposal doesn't address the CREATEROLE or CONNECTION LIMIT
> properties. It seems possible to me that someone might want to set up
> a CREATEROLE user who can't make more such users, and this proposal
> doesn't manufacture any way of doing that. It also doesn't let you
> constraint the ability of a CREATEROLE user to set a CONNECTION LIMIT
> for some other user. I think that's OK. It might be nice to have ways
> of imposing such restrictions at some point in the future, but it is
> not very obvious what to do about such cases and, importantly, I don't
> think there's any security impact from failing to address those cases.
> If a CREATEROLE user without CREATEDB can create a new role that does
> have CREATEDB, that's a privilege escalation. If they can hand out
> CREATEROLE, that isn't: they already have it.
Here is a patch implementing the above proposal. Since this is fairly
closely related to already-committed work, I would like to get this
into v16. That way, all the changes to how CREATEROLE works will go
into a single release, which seems less confusing for users. It is
also fairly clear to me that this is an improvement over the status
quo. Sometimes things that seem clear to me turn out to be false, so
if this change seems like a problem to you, please let me know.
Thanks,
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
