Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Isaac Morland
Subject Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions
Date
Msg-id CAMsGm5cThueMPSKugXw6bLu0sgJNz1R0EOfhZW1-kytUZxFH_w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 at 12:53, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
 
> I didn't get you completely here. w.r.t extensions how will this have
> an impact if we set the search_path for definer functions. 

If we only set the search path for SECURITY DEFINER functions, I don't
think that solves the whole problem.

Indeed. While the ability for a caller to set the search_path for a security definer functions introduces security problems that are different than for security invoker functions, it's still weird for the behaviour of a function to depend on the caller's search_path. It’s even weirder for the default search path behaviour to be different depending on whether or not the function is security definer.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: question regarding policy for patches to out-of-support branches