On 1/7/06, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A recent article about an Oracle worm:
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1880648,00.asp
> > got me wondering.
> > Could a worm like this infect a PostgreSQL installation?
> > It seems to depend on default usernames and passwords - and
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A recent article about an Oracle worm:
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1880648,00.asp
>> got me wondering.
> PostgreSQL doesn't allow network access, by default, which more than
> makes up for that.
You would have to both alter postgresql.
> A recent article about an Oracle worm:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1880648,00.asp
> got me wondering.
> Could a worm like this infect a PostgreSQL installation?
> It seems to depend on default usernames and passwords -
> and lazy DBAs, IMO.
> Isn't it true that PostgreSQL doesn't have
> A recent article about an Oracle worm:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1880648,00.asp
> got me wondering.
> Could a worm like this infect a PostgreSQL installation?
> It seems to depend on default usernames and passwords - and
> lazy DBAs, IMO.
> Isn't it true that PostgreSQL doesn't have
A recent article about an Oracle worm:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1880648,00.asp
got me wondering.
Could a worm like this infect a PostgreSQL installation?
It seems to depend on default usernames and passwords -
and lazy DBAs, IMO.
Isn't it true that PostgreSQL doesn't have any default u
