Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?
Hi everyone,
Over the last few days we've had patches submitted for 7.2.3 that
address a couple of things, both the WAL Recovery Bug that Tom has
developed a patch for, and a couple of buffer overflows that have been
widely reported.
Although we haven't wanted to release a 7.2.4, and have instead
encouraged people to upgrade to 7.3.x, there are places out there who's
applications aren't compatible with 7.3.x and would also need to upgrade
them as well.
It might be a really good idea if we re-visit the thought of 7.2.4 and
have something that people running the 7.2.x series can use safely until
they are able to move to 7.3.x or above.
What would it take, and apart from patches for the buffer overflows and
the WAL recovery bug, should anything else be included to ensure safety
and stability?
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
On Thursday 16 January 2003 22:47, Justin Clift wrote:
Although we haven't wanted to release a 7.2.4, and have instead
encouraged people to upgrade to 7.3.x, there are places out there who's
applications aren't compatible with 7.3.x and would also need to upgrade
them as well.
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the security update onslaught from Red
Hat for older PostgreSQL versions? They even backported the fixes to 6.5.3
from Red Hat 6.2 (as well as for 7.0 and 7.1 as released in the respective
Red Hat Linux versions). Should I forward that notice here?
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the security update onslaught from Red
Hat for older PostgreSQL versions? They even backported the fixes to 6.5.3
from Red Hat 6.2 (as well as for 7.0 and 7.1 as released in the respective
Red Hat Linux versions). Should I forward that notice here?
Some of the guys in Toronto got excited about it, but I can't see a lot
of value there myself. If you're still running 6.5.3, is it likely you
notice updates from anywhere?
Red Hat 6.2 is still nominally supported (until March 31, it says here)
so I suppose there's a corporate compulsion to back-patch anything
that's labeled a security issue. But let's get real ... PG 6.anything
is stone-age code now.
regards, tom lane
Red Hat Database project
PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
so they get to make the decision...
Tom Lane wrote:
Red Hat 6.2 is still nominally supported (until March 31, it says here)
so I suppose there's a corporate compulsion to back-patch anything
that's labeled a security issue. But let's get real ... PG 6.anything
is stone-age code now.regards, tom lane
Red Hat Database projectPS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
so they get to make the decision...
Who, us? Well, there is the confusion factor of releasing a patch to a
superceeded major version. Wrapping it up and putting it out really
isn't a big deal. Marc?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073On Saturday 18 January 2003 00:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the security update onslaught from
Red Hat for older PostgreSQL versions? They even backported the fixes to
6.5.3 from Red Hat 6.2 (as well as for 7.0 and 7.1 as released in the
respective Red Hat Linux versions). Should I forward that notice here?
Some of the guys in Toronto got excited about it, but I can't see a lot
of value there myself. If you're still running 6.5.3, is it likely you
notice updates from anywhere?
Why not? Upgrading to another major version of most things isn't supported by
Red Hat within a particular version. KDE is a prime example. GNOME is
another. XFree86 is another. BIND is yet another, although BIND8 upgrades
are available for the systems that shipped with BIND4. RPM itself is one of
the few exceptions. Going to 7.3 from 6.5 is not an update.
And lots of sites are still running 6.2. IIRC Red Hat's up2date automatic
upgrader tool was available in 6.2, and I know other autoupdaters are
available. And, as we all know, automatic upgrade of PostgreSQL is only
possible within a major version. Plenty of security conscious people still
run Red Hat 6.2. Many probably pay for the enterprise support contracts
through Red Hat, costing much money.
Hmmmph, I know of a user running a couple of sites still running 5.2, with no
intention of upgrading those machines. Will PostgreSQL 7.3 even build on Red
Hat Linux 5.2? Forced upgrades are nonsense. So I'm glad Red Hat decided to
put resources into supporting their userbase (even given the sunset on said
support).
On the BSD front, OpenBSD in particular still is running ancient versions of
some core network stuff, due to the extreme security nature of that OS. Last
I looked at OBSD it still shipped BIND4. 4.9 something. Positively ancient
code that they have thoroughly audited. BIND8 hadn't at that time been fully
audited.
Red Hat 6.2 is still nominally supported (until March 31, it says here)
so I suppose there's a corporate compulsion to back-patch anything
that's labeled a security issue. But let's get real ... PG 6.anything
is stone-age code now.
Why? If a user doesn't need the features of 7.x.x, and the codebase is
working well for him/her, why should said user/DBA feel compelled to go
through who knows what mechanations to upgrade to the latest version? That's
Microsoft-think. The upgrade from a 6.5.3 system to a 7.3.1 system is likely
to be traumatic at least and cataclysmic at worst (to upgrade PostgreSQL may
require upgrading the whole OS, which may require more memory (maybe more
memory than the motherboard will support, even)....). Yes, let's get real --
not everybody needs or necessarily even wants all the improved features of PG
7.3 versus even 6.5.
The 'corporate compulsion' you mentioned is more widely known as 'customer
service.' IOW, you want to stay in business, you support your customers.
The Red Hat 5.2 user mentioned previously is perfectly happy with the
featureset of PostgreSQL 6.3.2 (which is what 5.2 shipped with) and won't
upgrade until it's very necessary. But this is a very low resource machine,
where even the Linux 2.0 kernel makes sense. Now 6.5.3 will build on 5.2,
but I haven't tried anything more recent. And 6.3.2 is enough database for
their uses -- but these machines are in roles where security issues could be
problematic. If it were easier to upgrade, they might consider it.
_Of_course_ I'm not advocating that _we_ support these old of systems (after
all, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group _has_ no customers) -- but it
_is_ nice when a distributor acknowledges their older customers with real
security updates within their released versions, and doesn't force major
upgrades when unnecessary.
Now if the user needs _features_ then the upgrade is justified, and I have no
sympathy for a user who wants, say, schema support backpatched to 7.0.3, for
instance. That request is just ridiculous. But for security and critical
bugfixes, it should not be a forced major version upgrade, unless the bugfix
cannot be easily backported. I for one intend to get the source RPM's for
the fixed packages -- who knows, maybe some of the patches include the
ability to rebuild on later Red Hat Linux versions, helping my upgradability
crusade a little.
As to the 7.2.4 issue, much if not all of our userbase is more than used to
multiple concurrent OS kernel branches. Linux users in particular are very
used to parallel versions -- the 2.0.x and 2.2.x series still get occassional
releases even with 2.4.x out, and the development versions are in parallel
constantly (except during the first few versions of a recent stable) with
stable releases.. FreeBSD has their branches, etc. I think we should
release a 7.2.4 if the bugfixes warrant it. (Not a 7.1.4, though, or 7.0.4,
or 6.5.4, or 6.4.3, or 6.3.3, or....)
And I'm not against progress -- just against forced progress.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
... Why? If a user doesn't need the features of 7.x.x, and the codebase is
working well for him/her, why should said user/DBA feel compelled to go
through who knows what mechanations to upgrade to the latest version?
Because there are unfixable bugs in the older versions. I see very
little point in issuing "security updates" that fix individual buffer
overruns, when anyone who has the SQL-level access needed to trigger
one of those overruns can equally easily do "select cash_out(2)".
The only fix for that is an upgrade to 7.3.
I don't by any means have a problem with Red Hat issuing maintenance
releases against old versions (nor, as I said, do I have any objection
to a 7.2.4 community release; I just said it wasn't my decision to make).
What I am questioning is the value of fixing some security holes when
there are bigger, unfixable ones right next door. It wastes time that
could be spent on other work, and it may give DBAs a false sense of
security. "Sure I'm safe; I just got the latest security patch from
Red Hat, so my 6.5.3 Postgres must be bulletproof now!"
regards, tom lane
On Saturday 18 January 2003 11:13, Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
... Why? If a user doesn't need the features of 7.x.x, and the codebase
is working well for him/her, why should said user/DBA feel compelled to
go through who knows what mechanations to upgrade to the latest version?
Because there are unfixable bugs in the older versions. I see very
little point in issuing "security updates" that fix individual buffer
overruns, when anyone who has the SQL-level access needed to trigger
one of those overruns can equally easily do "select cash_out(2)".
The only fix for that is an upgrade to 7.3.
And the cure might be worse than the disease; that is my point.
It wastes time that
could be spent on other work, and it may give DBAs a false sense of
security. "Sure I'm safe; I just got the latest security patch from
Red Hat, so my 6.5.3 Postgres must be bulletproof now!"
Red Hat issued a very detailed synopsis of what was fixed. Also, one man's
wasted time is another man's time well spent.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
This is an interesting thought. My gut tells me it is a viable
opportunity for the corporate entities that offer support and wish to
have 'VAR' status.
This is just my opinion, but I view the core development group as pure
development, and the various people that resell or distribute PostgreSQL
as a for-profit business as those responsible for maintaining backward
support.
Maybe RedHat or PostgreSQL Inc can do this? It is a really good message,
"The best of open source, with on going support."
And not to re-open a can of worms, but if PostgreSQL could upgrade
without having to do a dump and restore, then this wouldn't really be an
issue.
Justin Clift wrote:
Show quoted text
Hi everyone,
Over the last few days we've had patches submitted for 7.2.3 that
address a couple of things, both the WAL Recovery Bug that Tom has
developed a patch for, and a couple of buffer overflows that have been
widely reported.Although we haven't wanted to release a 7.2.4, and have instead
encouraged people to upgrade to 7.3.x, there are places out there
who's applications aren't compatible with 7.3.x and would also need to
upgrade them as well.It might be a really good idea if we re-visit the thought of 7.2.4 and
have something that people running the 7.2.x series can use safely
until they are able to move to 7.3.x or above.What would it take, and apart from patches for the buffer overflows
and the WAL recovery bug, should anything else be included to ensure
safety and stability?:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
mlw wrote:
This is an interesting thought. My gut tells me it is a viable
opportunity for the corporate entities that offer support and wish to
have 'VAR' status.This is just my opinion, but I view the core development group as pure
development, and the various people that resell or distribute PostgreSQL
as a for-profit business as those responsible for maintaining backward
support.Maybe RedHat or PostgreSQL Inc can do this? It is a really good message,
"The best of open source, with on going support."
Very interesting thought. It could probably be done. Oh, hang on...
Red Hat is taking that angle for now. :-)
And not to re-open a can of worms, but if PostgreSQL could upgrade
without having to do a dump and restore, then this wouldn't really be an
issue.
That's not really true. Have personally seen applications that places
use and rely on that are not yet compatible with v 7.3.x, because the
vendors of the applications compiled against something that was of
version 7.2.x, and doesn't work with version 7.3.x.
Now, that's not our fault, and not the fault of the places running the
applications, it's just part of how PostgreSQL is applied out in the
real world.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
<snip>
PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
so they get to make the decision...Who, us? Well, there is the confusion factor of releasing a patch to a
superceeded major version. Wrapping it up and putting it out really
isn't a big deal. Marc?
Hi Marc,
Would you be ok with us releasing a 7.2.4?
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 22:47, Justin Clift wrote:
Over the last few days we've had patches submitted for 7.2.3 that
address a couple of things, both the WAL Recovery Bug that Tom has
developed a patch for, and a couple of buffer overflows that have been
widely reported.
The buffer overflows, IMHO, are not sufficient reason to release an
update. As Tom pointed out, there are lots of other, unpatched overflows
in 7.2.3 (and the whole class of vulnerability requires SQL access to
begin with).
As for the "WAL recovery bug", AFAIK no such bug has been reported "in
the last few days". Exactly what issue are you referring to?
Cheers,
Neil
Neil, Robert:
"As for the "WAL recovery bug", AFAIK no such bug has been reported "in
the last few days". Exactly what issue are you referring to?"
That's my bug; I filed it on Wednesday.
However, it is not 100%; that is:
1) While Tom and I are pretty sure that the issue *could* cause the behavior
reported, we're not completely certain that it *did*; i.e. in the two
reported cases, one actually turned out to be something else, and the other
could possibly be something else as well.
2) Nobody has tested that switching the order of those 2 lines in 7.2.3
doesn't cause any problems, to date.
I'm not saying that it's not potentially a patchable bug. We're just not
ready to patch it yet.
But I do vote for a 7.2.4 just because I can't upgrade a lot of my clients to
7.3.1 safely and there are a few easy patches for 7.2.3.
Alternately, I would suggest an omnibus patch for the 7.2.3 source code so
that we don't set a precedent for branching development.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
Josh Berkus wrote:
Neil, Robert:
"As for the "WAL recovery bug", AFAIK no such bug has been reported "in
the last few days". Exactly what issue are you referring to?"That's my bug; I filed it on Wednesday.
However, it is not 100%; that is:
1) While Tom and I are pretty sure that the issue *could* cause the behavior
reported, we're not completely certain that it *did*; i.e. in the two
reported cases, one actually turned out to be something else, and the other
could possibly be something else as well.2) Nobody has tested that switching the order of those 2 lines in 7.2.3
doesn't cause any problems, to date.I'm not saying that it's not potentially a patchable bug. We're just not
ready to patch it yet.
Ok, this might not be such an important fix after all then? The wording
of it at the time did make it sound important, but if it somehow has bad
interactions we would be shooting ourselves in the foot with it.
Any guess-timates on it's safeness and whether it really would be
beneficial?
But I do vote for a 7.2.4 just because I can't upgrade a lot of my clients to
7.3.1 safely and there are a few easy patches for 7.2.3.Alternately, I would suggest an omnibus patch for the 7.2.3 source code so
that we don't set a precedent for branching development.
An interesting thought here is to know if Red Hat fixed *all* of the
known PostgreSQL security flaws for 7.2.3 with their latest security
release. It would be interesting to see their code if they did so, but
from Tom's previous comments it would have meant a real lot of work.
It's probably better to put out a 7.2.4 than an omnibus patch though, as
it gives a better foundation for everyone working on 7.2.x to safely
move to. From the viewpoint of "it takes more skill to patch than to
compile".
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
On Sunday 19 January 2003 22:16, Justin Clift wrote:
An interesting thought here is to know if Red Hat fixed *all* of the
known PostgreSQL security flaws for 7.2.3 with their latest security
release. It would be interesting to see their code if they did so, but
from Tom's previous comments it would have meant a real lot of work.
Judge for yourself. Here's the text of the two Red Hat advisories (with the
RPM listing and MD5 sums omitted):
[For older versions]
Red Hat, Inc. Red Hat Security Advisory
Synopsis: Updated PostgreSQL packages fix buffer overrun
vulnerabilities
Advisory ID: RHSA-2003:010-10
Issue date: 2003-01-14
Updated on: 2003-01-14
Product: Red Hat Linux
Keywords: PostgreSQL datetime lpad rpad multibyte
Cross references: RHSA-2002:301 RHSA-2003:001
Obsoletes:
CVE Names: CAN-2002-0972 CAN-2002-1397 CAN-2002-1398 CAN-2002-1400
CAN-2002-1401 CAN-2002-1402
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Topic:
Updated PostgreSQL packages are available for Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7, 7.1,
and 7.2 where we have backported a number of security fixes. A separate
advisory deals with updated PostgreSQL packages for Red Hat Linux 7.3 and
8.0.
2. Relevant releases/architectures:
Red Hat Linux 6.2 - i386
Red Hat Linux 7.0 - i386
Red Hat Linux 7.1 - i386
Red Hat Linux 7.2 - i386, ia64
3. Problem description:
PostgreSQL is an advanced Object-Relational database management system
(DBMS). A number of security issues have been found that affect PostgreSQL
versions shipped with Red Hat Linux.
Buffer overflows in PostgreSQL 7.2 allow attackers to cause a denial of
service and possibly execute arbitrary code via long arguments to the lpad
or rpad functions. CAN-2002-0972
Buffer overflow in the cash_words() function for PostgreSQL 7.2 and
earlier allows local users to cause a denial of service and possibly
execute arbitrary code via a malformed argument. CAN-2002-1397
Buffer overflow in the date parser for PostgreSQL before 7.2.2 allows
attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary
code via a long date string, also known as a vulnerability "in handling
long datetime input." CAN-2002-1398
Heap-based buffer overflow in the repeat() function for PostgreSQL
before 7.2.2 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code by causing
repeat() to generate a large string. CAN-2002-1400
Buffer overflows in circle_poly, path_encode and path_add allow attackers
to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code. Note
that these issues have been fixed in our packages and in PostgreSQL CVS,
but are not included in PostgreSQL version 7.2.2 or 7.2.3. CAN-2002-1401
Buffer overflows in the TZ and SET TIME ZONE enivronment variables for
PostgreSQL 7.2.1 and earlier allow local users to cause a denial of service
and possibly execute arbitrary code. CAN-2002-1402
Note that these vulnerabilities are only critical on open or shared systems
because connecting to the database is required before the vulnerabilities
can be exploited.
The PostgreSQL Global Development Team has released versions of PostgreSQL
that fixes these vulnerabilities, and these fixes have been isolated and
backported to the various versions of PostgreSQL that originally shipped
with each Red Hat Linux distribution. All users of PostgreSQL are advised
to install these updated packages.
4. Solution:
Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata
relevant to your system have been applied.
Please note that this update is available via Red Hat Network. To use Red
Hat Network, launch the Red Hat Update Agent with the following command:
up2date
This will start an interactive process that will result in the appropriate
RPMs being upgraded on your system.
Note that no initdb will be necessary from previous PostgreSQL packages.
5. RPMs required:
[omitted]
[For recent versions]
Red Hat, Inc. Red Hat Security Advisory
Synopsis: Updated PostgreSQL packages fix security issues and bugs
Advisory ID: RHSA-2003:001-16
Issue date: 2003-01-14
Updated on: 2003-01-14
Product: Red Hat Linux
Keywords: PostgreSQL VACUUM pre-1970 spinlock
Cross references:
Obsoletes:
CVE Names: CAN-2002-0972 CAN-2002-1397 CAN-2002-1398 CAN-2002-1400
CAN-2002-1401 CAN-2002-1402
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Topic:
Updated PostgreSQL packages are available for Red Hat Linux 7.3 and 8.0.
These packages correct several security and other bugs. A separate
advisory deals with updated PostgreSQL packages for Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7,
7.1, and 7.2.
2. Relevant releases/architectures:
Red Hat Linux 7.3 - i386
Red Hat Linux 8.0 - i386
3. Problem description:
PostgreSQL is an advanced Object-Relational database management system.
Red Hat Linux 7.3 shipped with PostgreSQL version 7.2.1. Red Hat Linux 8.0
shipped with PostgreSQL version 7.2.2.
PostgreSQL versions 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 contain a serious issue with the VACUUM
command when it is run by a non-superuser. It is possible for the system
to prematurely remove old transaction log data (pg_clog files), which can
result in unrecoverable data loss.
A number of minor security issues affect the PostgreSQL 7.2.1 packages
shipped with Red Hat Linux 7.3 only:
1. Buffer overflows in PostgreSQL 7.2 allow attackers to cause a denial of
service and possibly execute arbitrary code via long arguments to the lpad
or rpad functions. CAN-2002-0972
2. Buffer overflow in the cash_words() function allows local users to cause
a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a malformed
argument. CAN-2002-1397
3. Buffer overflow in the date parser allows attackers to cause a denial of
service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long date string, also
known as a vulnerability "in handling long datetime input." CAN-2002-1398
4. Heap-based buffer overflow in the repeat() function allows attackers to
execute arbitrary code by causing repeat() to generate a large string.
CAN-2002-1400
5. Buffer overflows in the TZ and SET TIME ZONE enivronment variables allow
local users to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary
code. CAN-2002-1402
Additionally, buffer overflows in circle_poly, path_encode and path_add
allow attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary
code. Note that these overflows have been fixed in our erratum packages and
in PostgreSQL CVS, but are not fixed in the released versions of PostgreSQL
version 7.2.3. CAN-2002-1401
The above vulnerabilities are only critical on open or shared systems
because connecting to the database is required before the vulnerabilities
can be exploited.
This update also contains fixes for several other PostgreSQL bugs,
including handling of pre-1970 date values in newer versions of glibc,
possible server shutdown hangs, spinlock hangs on SMP PPC machines, and
pg_dump improperly dumping with the FULL JOIN USING clauses.
All users of PostgreSQL should upgrade to these errata packages containing
PostgreSQL 7.2.3 with additional patches to correct all these issues. Note
that running initdb is not necessary when upgrading from 7.2.1 or 7.2.2 to
the packages contained in this errata.
4. Solution:
Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata
relevant to your system have been applied.
To update all RPMs for your particular architecture, run:
rpm -Fvh [filenames]
where [filenames] is a list of the RPMs you wish to upgrade. Only those
RPMs which are currently installed will be updated. Those RPMs which are
not installed but included in the list will not be updated. Note that you
can also use wildcards (*.rpm) if your current directory *only* contains
the desired RPMs.
Please note that this update is also available via Red Hat Network. Many
people find this an easier way to apply updates. To use Red Hat Network,
launch the Red Hat Update Agent with the following command:
up2date
This will start an interactive process that will result in the appropriate
RPMs being upgraded on your system.
5. RPMs required:
[omitted]
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
so they get to make the decision...
I have no problems creating one ... Bruce?
Neil Conway wrote:
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 22:47, Justin Clift wrote:
Over the last few days we've had patches submitted for 7.2.3 that
address a couple of things, both the WAL Recovery Bug that Tom has
developed a patch for, and a couple of buffer overflows that have been
widely reported.The buffer overflows, IMHO, are not sufficient reason to release an
update. As Tom pointed out, there are lots of other, unpatched overflows
in 7.2.3 (and the whole class of vulnerability requires SQL access to
begin with).As for the "WAL recovery bug", AFAIK no such bug has been reported "in
the last few days". Exactly what issue are you referring to?
Let's look at the issue here --- I think security fixes are of a
different class from corruption bugs or functionality bugs. For the
latter, fixing those fixes actual problems in the server that actually
improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them
when the other eight are still open? I don't see any improvement in the
functionality of PostgreSQL in such a case, while feature/corruption
fixes _do_ improve the backend code.
I think we have to accept the statement that in 7.2.X malicious SQL
queries can cause database failure, and fixing one or two of the ten
known problems doesn't change that fact.
I don't have a problem with releasing 7.2.4 and including all the fixes,
including security fixes, but I don't see the security fixes _as_ _a_
_reason_ to release a 7.2.4.
So, do we have non-security fixes to warrant a 7.2.X?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them
when the other eight are still open?
Yes. It depends upon which street the door faces. See the MS SQL Server
Sapphire worm for reference.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them
when the other eight are still open?Yes. It depends upon which street the door faces. See the MS SQL Server
Sapphire worm for reference.
Right. All our open doors are on the inside, so we aren't too bad.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073On Saturday 25 January 2003 21:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of
them when the other eight are still open?
Yes. It depends upon which street the door faces. See the MS SQL Server
Sapphire worm for reference.
Right. All our open doors are on the inside, so we aren't too bad.
SQL injection exploits for various frontends are also an issue.
I just have an issue with being able to crash the server with an SQL command.
We'll see how it pans out, I guess.
Red Hat certainly thought it was worth spending some time on; reference their
back porting of the fixes to versions as old as 6.5.3.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Saturday 25 January 2003 21:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of
them when the other eight are still open?Yes. It depends upon which street the door faces. See the MS SQL Server
Sapphire worm for reference.Right. All our open doors are on the inside, so we aren't too bad.
SQL injection exploits for various frontends are also an issue.
I just have an issue with being able to crash the server with an SQL command.
We'll see how it pans out, I guess.Red Hat certainly thought it was worth spending some time on; reference their
back porting of the fixes to versions as old as 6.5.3.
If we can get them all, it is a big win. If we can't, I don't think it
is a win.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
