Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4432.1090681947@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Thinking we have security because they can't guess > pgdata seems like security through obscurity to me. Sure, but it's still a useful roadblock to throw in an attacker's way. I spent many years doing computer security stuff, and one thing I learned is that the more layers of security you can have, the better. You don't put all your faith in any one roadblock; you erect a series of them that an attacker will have to break through all of. If some of 'em are a little porous, that doesn't make 'em useless. In today's context, I think the main point of requiring an attacker to guess $PGDATA is that it helps avoid the "software monoculture" syndrome. If someone did manage to write a Postgres-based virus that involved an exploit in this area, it could only spread to machines that had the $PGDATA value the virus writer was expecting. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: