On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:04 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:
> > > On Apr 1, 2019, at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:16 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> Yeah; this is supposing that there is a security boundary between > >>> Postgres superusers and the OS account running the server, which > >>> there is not. We could hardly have features like untrusted PLs > >>> if we were trying to maintain such a boundary. > > > >> I wonder if we need to prepare some sort of official response to that. > >> I was considering writing up a blog post about it, but maybe we need > >> something more official? > > > > Blog post seems like a good idea. As for an "official" response, > > it strikes me that maybe we need better documentation. > > +1, though I’d want to see if people get noisier about it before we rule > out an official response. > > A blog post from a reputable author who can speak to security should > be good enough and we can make noise through our various channels. > I have now made such a post at https://blog.hagander.net/when-a-vulnerability-is-not-a-vulnerability-244/ -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
