Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Regarding the advisory on possibly insecure security definer functions
> that I just sent out (by overriding the search path you can make the
> function do whatever you want with the privileges of the function
> owner), the favored solution after some initial discussion in the core
> team was to save the search path at creation time with each function.
> This measure will arguably also increase the robustness of functions in
> general, and it seems to be desirable as part of the effort to make
> plan invalidation work.
>
> Quite probably, there will be all sorts of consequences in terms of
> backward compatibility and preserving the possibility of valid uses of
> the old behavior and so on.  So I'm inviting input on how to fix the
> problem in general and how to avoid the mentioned follow-up problems in
> particular.


Maybe we need an option on CREATE  ... SECURITY DEFINER to allow the
function to inherit the caller's search path.

cheers

andrew