Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Date
Msg-id CABUevExHwgatnM4Np-ypimatcX7CKiOpzotE8OXy+Topq50FeA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

On 03/01/2014 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:


In the case of Unix systems, there is a *far* simpler and more portable
solution technique, which is to tell the test postmaster to put its socket
in some non-world-accessible directory created by the test scaffolding.


+1 - I'm all for KISS.



Of course that doesn't work for Windows, which is why we looked at the
random-password solution.  But I wonder whether we shouldn't use the
nonstandard-socket-location approach everywhere else, and only use random
passwords on Windows.  That would greatly reduce the number of cases to
worry about for portability of the password-generation code; and perhaps
we could also push the crypto issue into reliance on some Windows-supplied
functionality (though I'm just speculating about that part).


See for example <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379942%28v=vs.85%29.aspx>

For a one-off password used locally only, we could also consider just using a guid, and generate it using http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379205(v=vs.85).aspx. Obviously windows only though - do we have *any* Unix platforms that can't do unix sockets?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)