public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
To: Joe Conway <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: can we mark upper/lower/textlike functions leakproof?
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:54:29 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CAApHDvr36T+9XZYTRkHkGm82Wo5YY6wXwkRDceu2-cyGEvHzjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+Tgmob78LN+Tkgms=dQyBsLyGWBuehv7_kEvBfjwmj6fDsr7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>


On 2024-07-31 We 2:43 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 7/31/24 14:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
>>> If there are some inputs that cause upper() and lower() to fail and
>>> others that do not, the functions aren't leakproof, because an
>>> attacker can extract information about values that they can't see by
>>> feeding those values into these functions and seeing whether they get
>>> a failure or not.
>>
>>> [ rather exhaustive analysis redacted ]


First, thanks you very much, Robert for the analysis.


>>
>>> So in summary, I think upper() is ... pretty close to leakproof. But
>>> if ICU sometimes fails on certain strings, then it isn't. And if the
>>> multi-byte libc path can be made to fail reliably either with really
>>> long strings or with certain choices of the LC_CTYPE locale, then it
>>> isn't.
>>
>> The problem here is that marking these functions leakproof is a
>> promise about a *whole bunch* of code, much of it not under our
>> control; worse, there's no reason to think all that code is stable.
>> A large fraction of it didn't even exist a few versions ago.
>>
>> Even if we could convince ourselves that the possible issues Robert
>> mentions aren't real at the moment, I think marking these leakproof
>> is mighty risky.  It's unlikely we'd remember to revisit the marking
>> the next time someone drops a bunch of new code in here.
>
>
> I still maintain that there is a whole host of users that would accept 
> the risk of side channel attacks via existence of an error or not, if 
> they could only be sure nothing sensitive leaks directly into the logs 
> or to the clients. We should give them that choice.
>

As I meant to say in my previous empty reply, I think your suggestions 
make lots of sense.


cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

view thread (29+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: can we mark upper/lower/textlike functions leakproof?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox