Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 7.2.2: Security Release - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 7.2.2: Security Release
Date
Msg-id GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOMEOACDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 7.2.2: Security Release  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 7.2.2: Security Release  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
*sigh* Someone's marked postgres 7.2.1 as forbidden in FreeBSD ports:

FORBIDDEN=      "buffer overruns acknowledged by authors--see
<URL:http://www3.us.postgresql.org/news.html>"

Somewhat of an overreaction...I'm hassling the maintainer at the moment...

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
> Sent: Monday, 26 August 2002 10:17 AM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Gavin Sherry; Neil Conway; PostgreSQL Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 7.2.2: Security Release
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, I understand your point.  What do we need to do now that the
> > announcement has already been made?
>
> I'm still slightly confused here ... from what Neil/Gavin have stated so
> far, all it sounds like is that if I pass a wrong date/time string, it
> will crash the backend ... or is this what I'm missing?
>
>
>  >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >
> > Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The issue is data-provoked crashes vs. query-invoked
> crashes.  Marc's
> > > > point, and I think it was clear enough, is that you can't
> just poke at
> > > > the TCP port and hope to do anything bad, which was the
> thrust of the
> > > > argument, I think.
> > >
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > I am convinced that someone with enough time on their hands
> and some code
> > > pointed to by Florian Weimer could exploit the datetime
> overrun issue by
> > > crafting a datetime string in such a way as to overrun the buffer and
> > > smash the stack.
> > >
> > > In applications which pass date/time data directly to the
> database without
> > > any validation (is this datetime string greater than 52 bytes? does it
> > > look like a date/time string?) then a malicious user without direct
> > > database access could crash the database by taking advantage
> of the short
> > > comings in Postgres and the application.
> > >
> > > As such, I would recommend all people who offer direct access to the
> > > database and/or have applications which user date/time data
> > > types/functionality to upgrade to 7.2.2.
> > >
> > > Gavin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> > >
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> >   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
> >   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
> >   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
> >   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
> Pennsylvania 19073
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> >     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Deadlock situation using foreign keys (reproduceable)
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 7.2.2 and docs