Bug 237680 - CVE-2007-2138 PostgreSQL security-definer function privilege escalation
CVE-2007-2138 PostgreSQL security-definer function privilege escalation
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: postgresql (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tom Lane
David Lawrence
: Security
: 237823 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-04-24 14:39 EDT by Josh Bressers
Modified: 2013-07-02 23:12 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: RHSA-2007-0336
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-05-08 11:38:49 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Josh Bressers 2007-04-24 14:39:01 EDT
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 17:58:18 EDT
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 11:32:13 EDT
*** Bug 237823 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Tom Lane 2007-04-26 15:52:46 EDT
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 11:38:49 EDT
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.