Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevExHwgatnM4Np-ypimatcX7CKiOpzotE8OXy+Topq50FeA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
+1 - I'm all for KISS.
On 03/01/2014 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In the case of Unix systems, there is a *far* simpler and more portable
solution technique, which is to tell the test postmaster to put its socket
in some non-world-accessible directory created by the test scaffolding.See for example <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379942%28v=vs.85%29.aspx>
Of course that doesn't work for Windows, which is why we looked at the
random-password solution. But I wonder whether we shouldn't use the
nonstandard-socket-location approach everywhere else, and only use random
passwords on Windows. That would greatly reduce the number of cases to
worry about for portability of the password-generation code; and perhaps
we could also push the crypto issue into reliance on some Windows-supplied
functionality (though I'm just speculating about that part).
For a one-off password used locally only, we could also consider just using a guid, and generate it using http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379205(v=vs.85).aspx. Obviously windows only though - do we have *any* Unix platforms that can't do unix sockets?
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: