Re: CREATEROLE and role ownership hierarchies
От | Mark Dilger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CREATEROLE and role ownership hierarchies |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8043E300-4968-4284-9A3C-84532C8F47BE@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CREATEROLE and role ownership hierarchies (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: CREATEROLE and role ownership hierarchies
Re: CREATEROLE and role ownership hierarchies |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jan 24, 2022, at 2:21 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > Superuser is a problem specifically because it gives people access to do absolutely anything, both for security and safetyconcerns. Disallowing a way to curtail that same risk when it comes to role ownership invites exactly those same problems. Before the patch, users with CREATEROLE can do mischief. After the patch, users with CREATEROLE can do mischief. The differenceis that the mischief that can be done after the patch is a proper subset of the mischief that can be done beforethe patch. (Counter-examples highly welcome.) Specifically, I claim that before the patch, non-superuser "bob" with CREATEROLE can interfere with *any* non-superuser. After the patch, non-superuser "bob" with CREATEROLE can interfere with *some* non-superusers; specifically,with non-superusers he created himself, or which have had ownership transferred to him. Restricting the scope of bob's mischief is a huge win, in my view. The argument about whether owners should always implicitly inherit privileges from roles they own is a bit orthogonal tomy point about mischief-making. Do we at least agree on the mischief-abatement aspect of this patch set? — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: