-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
> I grow weary of repeating this: it's not about resource consumption, nor
> about potential security holes in plpgsql itself. It's about handing
> attackers the capability to further exploit *other* security holes.
Well, without specific examples, I'm not sure I understand what plpgsql
buys you that you could not do other ways (e.g. generate_series() for
looping). An earlier thread mentioned someone with access to pg_shadow
writing a function to hash random passwords and comparing them, but if
someone has access to pg_shadow, surely they can simply download the
info to their local box for a more efficient cracking attempt? In any
rate, that's not really a security hole, so perhaps a better example
exists.
There are so many simple ways to "do bad things" /without/ plpgsql, I
just don't see how the theoretical harm in it being used as an attack
vector even comes close to the benefits of having it installed by default.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200802211227
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAke9tdIACgkQvJuQZxSWSsieowCfQTbmdmGdIJSpWCOU5S2bHSR5
1PgAnjxjOV7Dh1X9nF3pPjDDBosiX0Tx
=Z6yR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----