Re: postgres_fdw super user checks
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postgres_fdw super user checks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqT4br0vDaPYimj1nRGpEvBHuWJCMyiUZ0tPBA+a7FzBmg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postgres_fdw super user checks (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: postgres_fdw super user checks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote: >>> postgres_fdw has some checks to enforce that non-superusers must connect to >>> the foreign server with a password-based method. The reason for this is to >>> prevent the authentication to the foreign server from happening on the basis >>> of the OS user who is running the non-foreign server. >>> >>> But I think these super user checks should be run against the userid of the >>> USER MAPPING being used for the connection, not the userid of currently >>> logged on user. >> >> So, if the user mapping user is a superuser locally, this would allow >> any lambda user of the local server to attempt a connection to the >> remote server. It looks dangerous rather dangerous to me to authorize >> that, even if the current behavior is a bit inconsistent I agree. > > I don't know what "any lambda user" means. Did you mean to write "any > random user"? Yes, in this context that would be "any non-superuser" or "any user without superuser rights". Actually that's a French-ism. I just translated it naturally to English to define a user that has no access to advanced features :) -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: