Bug 237680 - CVE-2007-2138 PostgreSQL security-definer function privilege escalation
Summary: CVE-2007-2138 PostgreSQL security-definer function privilege escalation
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: postgresql
Version: 5.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Tom Lane
QA Contact: David Lawrence
Whiteboard: impact=moderate,public=20070423,repor...
: 237823 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-04-24 18:39 UTC by Josh Bressers
Modified: 2013-07-03 03:12 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: RHSA-2007-0336
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-05-08 15:38:49 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

System ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2007:0336 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Moderate: postgresql security update 2008-01-07 19:46:54 UTC

Description Josh Bressers 2007-04-24 18:39:01 UTC
Quoting the PostgreSQL release notes:

    Support explicit placement of the temporary-table schema within search_path, 
    and disable searching it for functions and operators (Tom)

    This is needed to allow a security-definer function to set a truly secure 
    value of search_path. Without it, an unprivileged SQL user can use temporary 
    objects to execute code with the privileges of the security-definer function 
    (CVE-2007-2138). See CREATE FUNCTION for more information.

This flaw also affects RHEL 3 and 4

Comment 1 Tom Lane 2007-04-24 21:58:18 UTC
I've built the following:
RHEL5  postgresql-8.1.9-1.el5
RHEL4  postgresql-7.4.17-1.RHEL4.1
RHEL3  rh-postgresql-7.3.19-1

but just now realized that they all went into qu dists not async ...
hope that's not a problem.

Comment 2 Lubomir Kundrak 2007-04-25 15:32:13 UTC
*** Bug 237823 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Tom Lane 2007-04-26 19:52:46 UTC
Yeah, I know what it's for; I was wondering if it was intentional that rpmdiff
is now making this check in pre-RHEL5 branches, when it never did before.  I
asked on os-devel-list and didn't get a clear answer.  Anyway jakub did agree
that a security update isn't the time to be trying to fix such things.  I've
waived it since it's not a regression.

Comment 9 Red Hat Bugzilla 2007-05-08 15:38:49 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.