Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Date: 2014-03-01 21:53:56
Message-ID: 20140301215356.GD12995@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) 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.

Yes, yes, yes.

> 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).

Multi-user Windows build systems are *far* more rare than unix
equivilants (though even those are semi-rare in these days w/ all the
VMs running around, but still, you may have University common unix
systems with students building PG- the same just doesn't exist in my
experience on the Windows side).

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-03-01 22:10:21 Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2014-03-01 21:25:29 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe