There is a report from a debian user about a vulnerability in
PostgreSQL pre 7.2. Here is a possible attack scenario which allows to
execute ANY SQL in PostgreSQL.

A web application accepts an input as a part of SELECT qualification
clause. With the user input, the web server program would build a
query for example:

SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE foo = 'input_string_from_user'

Of course above method is too simple, since a user could input a
string such as:

foo'; DROP TABLE t1

To prevent the unwanted SQL statement being executed, the usual method
most applications are taking is quoting ' by \. With this, above
string would be turned into:

foo\'; DROP TABLE t1

which would make it impossible to execute the DROP TABLE statement.
For example in PHP, addslashes() function does the job.

Now, suppose the database encoding is set to SQL_ASCII and the client
encoding is, say, LATIN1 and "foo" in above string is a latin
character which cannot be converted to ASCII. In this case, PostgreSQL
would produce something like:

(0x81a2)\'; DROP TABLE t1

Unfortunately there was a bug in pre 7.2's multibyte support that
would eat the next character after the
impossible-to-convert-character, and would produce:

(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1

(notice that \ before ' is disappeared)

In this case actual query sent to the backend is:

SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE foo = '(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1'

The last ' will casue SQL error which prevents the DROP TABLE
statement from to be executed, except for 6.5.x.  (correct me if I am
wrong)

Here are the precise conditions to trigger the scenario:

(1) the backend is PostgreSQL 6.5.x
(2) multibyte support is enabled (--enable-multibyte)
(3) the database encoding is SQL_ASCII (other encodings are not
    affected by the bug). 
(4) the client encoding is set to other than SQL_ASCII

I think I am responsible for this since I originally wrote the
code. Sorry for this. I'm going to make back port patches to fix the
problem for pre 7.2 versions.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Thu, 02 May 2002 17:18:30 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
> Not tested: but how about the string being
> foo'; DROP TABLE T1; foo
> 
> Would the last ' be eaten up then resulting in no error?

Even the last ' is eaten up, the remaining string is (81a2), which
would cause parser errors since they are not valid SQL, I think.

> Also normally a \ would be quoted by \\ right? Would a foo\ result in an 
> unquoted \ ? An unquoted backslash may allow some possibilities.
> 
> There could be other ways to get rid of the last ', comments etc, so it may 
> not be just 6.5.x.

Please provide concrete examples. I could not find such that case.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Thu, 02 May 2002 17:50:46 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
Not tested: but how about the string being
foo'; DROP TABLE T1; foo

Would the last ' be eaten up then resulting in no error?

Also normally a \ would be quoted by \\ right? Would a foo\ result in an 
unquoted \ ? An unquoted backslash may allow some possibilities.

There could be other ways to get rid of the last ', comments etc, so it may 
not be just 6.5.x.

Regards,
Link.

At 05:18 PM 5/2/02 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>There is a report from a debian user about a vulnerability in
>PostgreSQL pre 7.2. Here is a possible attack scenario which allows to
>execute ANY SQL in PostgreSQL.
>
>A web application accepts an input as a part of SELECT qualification
>clause. With the user input, the web server program would build a
>query for example:
>
>SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE foo = 'input_string_from_user'
>
>Of course above method is too simple, since a user could input a
>string such as:
>
>foo'; DROP TABLE t1
>
>To prevent the unwanted SQL statement being executed, the usual method
>most applications are taking is quoting ' by \. With this, above
>string would be turned into:
>
>foo\'; DROP TABLE t1
>
>which would make it impossible to execute the DROP TABLE statement.
>For example in PHP, addslashes() function does the job.
>
>Now, suppose the database encoding is set to SQL_ASCII and the client
>encoding is, say, LATIN1 and "foo" in above string is a latin
>character which cannot be converted to ASCII. In this case, PostgreSQL
>would produce something like:
>
>(0x81a2)\'; DROP TABLE t1
>
>Unfortunately there was a bug in pre 7.2's multibyte support that
>would eat the next character after the
>impossible-to-convert-character, and would produce:
>
>(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1
>
>(notice that \ before ' is disappeared)



Thu, 02 May 2002 16:51:15 +0800
Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
Oops. How about:

foo'; DROP TABLE t1; -- foo

The last ' gets removed, leaving -- (81a2).

So you get:
select ... '(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1; -- (0x81a2)

Would that work? Or do you need to put a semicolon after the --?

Alternatively would select (0x81a2) be a syntax error? If it isn't then 
that's another way to terminate it properly.

As for the backslash, how does postgresql treat \000 and other naughty 
codes? Too bad there are too many characters to backspace over - that is if 
backspacing (\b) over commands works in the first place ;)...

I'll let you know if I think of other ways (I'm sure there are - I probably 
have to go through the postgresql syntax and commands more closely). Got to 
go :).

Cheerio,
Link.

At 05:50 PM 5/2/02 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Not tested: but how about the string being
> > foo'; DROP TABLE T1; foo
> >
> > Would the last ' be eaten up then resulting in no error?
>
>Even the last ' is eaten up, the remaining string is (81a2), which
>would cause parser errors since they are not valid SQL, I think.
>
> > Also normally a \ would be quoted by \\ right? Would a foo\ result in an
> > unquoted \ ? An unquoted backslash may allow some possibilities.
> >
> > There could be other ways to get rid of the last ', comments etc, so it 
> may
> > not be just 6.5.x.
>
>Please provide concrete examples. I could not find such that case.
>--
>Tatsuo Ishii
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)



Thu, 02 May 2002 19:17:28 +0800
Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
> Oops. How about:
> 
> foo'; DROP TABLE t1; -- foo
> 
> The last ' gets removed, leaving -- (81a2).
> 
> So you get:
> select ... '(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1; -- (0x81a2)

This surely works:-< Ok, you gave me an enough example that shows even
7.1.x and 7.0.x are not safe.

Included are patches for 7.1.3. Patches for 7.0.3 and 6.5.3 will be
posted soon.
Thu, 02 May 2002 22:37:19 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> Here are the precise conditions to trigger the scenario:

> (1) the backend is PostgreSQL 6.5.x
> (2) multibyte support is enabled (--enable-multibyte)
> (3) the database encoding is SQL_ASCII (other encodings are not
>     affected by the bug). 
> (4) the client encoding is set to other than SQL_ASCII

> I think I am responsible for this since I originally wrote the
> code. Sorry for this. I'm going to make back port patches to fix the
> problem for pre 7.2 versions.

It doesn't really seem worth the trouble to make patches for 6.5.x.
If someone hasn't upgraded yet, they aren't likely to install patches
either.  (ISTR there are other known security risks in 6.5, anyway.)
If the problem is fixed in 7.0 and later, why not just tell people to
upgrade?

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 02 May 2002 10:23:35 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL 
I hope you won't make this standard practice. Because there are quite 
significant differences that make upgrading from 7.1.x to 7.2 troublesome. 
I can't name them offhand but they've appeared on the list from time to time.

For 6.5.x to 7.1.x I believe there are smaller differences, even so there 
might be people who would patch for security/bug issues but not upgrade. 
I'm still on Windows 95 for instance (Microsoft has stopped supporting it 
tho :( ). I think there are still lots of people on Oracle 7.

Yes support of older software is a pain. But the silver lining is: it's 
open source they can feasibly patch it themselves if they are really hard 
pressed. If the bug report is descriptive enough DIY might not be so bad. 
And just think of it as people really liking your work :).

Any idea which versions of Postgresql have been bundled with O/S CDs?

Regards,
Link.

At 10:23 AM 5/2/02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > Here are the precise conditions to trigger the scenario:
>
> > (1) the backend is PostgreSQL 6.5.x
> > (2) multibyte support is enabled (--enable-multibyte)
> > (3) the database encoding is SQL_ASCII (other encodings are not
> >     affected by the bug).
> > (4) the client encoding is set to other than SQL_ASCII
>
> > I think I am responsible for this since I originally wrote the
> > code. Sorry for this. I'm going to make back port patches to fix the
> > problem for pre 7.2 versions.
>
>It doesn't really seem worth the trouble to make patches for 6.5.x.
>If someone hasn't upgraded yet, they aren't likely to install patches
>either.  (ISTR there are other known security risks in 6.5, anyway.)
>If the problem is fixed in 7.0 and later, why not just tell people to
>upgrade?
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster



Fri, 03 May 2002 11:43:31 +0800
Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL 
Or else people in our situation where it takes forever to upgrade the 
software because of its heavy use and the risk involved in upgrading, not
to mention the problems encountered when we did test-runs of the upgrade.

Then there is always the thorny issue of loads of software that uses the
databases, most of it under user control and any incompatibility between 
versions, 
no matter how small, could have horrible implications for our clients and 
therefore, us.

You see, we are an ISP and a consultancy specialising in database-driven
web sites and corporate infrastructure. We based nearly everything that 
we
do on PostgreSQL and although we upgrade when we can, our hands are
very tied. For us, patching is a necessity, not an option. To migrate
a client means rebuilding an entire UAT (user acceptance test site) for
them, extensively testing what we can ourselves, then asking the 
client to allocate time, money and people to test their systems and their
own code as well. They will also need to allocate development time, money
and people to fix any problems that they find in compatibility. 

Then there is the throny issue of both companies needing to synchronise
their resources and schedules so that we can work together solving any
problems that arise.

Finally, because we have no control over the customer's quality control, 
and
because customers very often don't have the inhouse expertise to even 
understand
what a proper test is about (they most often have hired in expensive 
consultants
or contracted other companies to do the work), we have no guarantees that 
when the
client thinks that they have tested the site, they really have. Now most 
people
will say "that's their problem", but you see, it isn't. Because these are 
business-critical systems that we're talking about and the change was 
initiated
by us. So if the system fails, for whatever reason, on the new software, 
even 
if it isn't anything to do with the new software, we get the flack. And 
also in
the clients' eyes, we are responsible because their system "was working 
fine until 
[we] forced and upgrade to new software".

And that is customer relations being damanged, even if the customer is 
wrong.

See the problem? I am only writing this to add to the pool of knowledge 
about
how PG is used and the real-world implications of PG being used for 
business
critical or customer-image systems. PG is extremely well suited for this 
and
the benefits over closed-source systems is enormous, not to mention the 
fact
that PG has email lists like this one with all the fine brains on this 
list
pooled together. It shows in the code and it shows in the satisfaction 
level
of those who use it (I have never once had a client who was dissatisfied 
with
PG. Most clients were surprised that OpenSource existed, that it is free 
and
that it is such great quality without any catches or got-yous that 
normally
comes with "free" things from commercial companies.).

Well, that's my hat in the ring. Hope that it helps someone out there or 
at
least adds something to our pooled knowledge!

Brad
Kieser.net


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 5/3/02, 4:43:31 AM, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my> wrote regarding 
Re: [HACKERS] a vulnerability in PostgreSQL :


> I hope you won't make this standard practice. Because there are quite
> significant differences that make upgrading from 7.1.x to 7.2 
troublesome.
> I can't name them offhand but they've appeared on the list from time to 
time.

> For 6.5.x to 7.1.x I believe there are smaller differences, even so there
> might be people who would patch for security/bug issues but not upgrade.
> I'm still on Windows 95 for instance (Microsoft has stopped supporting it
> tho :( ). I think there are still lots of people on Oracle 7.

> Yes support of older software is a pain. But the silver lining is: it's
> open source they can feasibly patch it themselves if they are really hard
> pressed. If the bug report is descriptive enough DIY might not be so bad.
> And just think of it as people really liking your work :).

> Any idea which versions of Postgresql have been bundled with O/S CDs?

> Regards,
> Link.

> At 10:23 AM 5/2/02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > > Here are the precise conditions to trigger the scenario:
> >
> > > (1) the backend is PostgreSQL 6.5.x
> > > (2) multibyte support is enabled (--enable-multibyte)
> > > (3) the database encoding is SQL_ASCII (other encodings are not
> > >     affected by the bug).
> > > (4) the client encoding is set to other than SQL_ASCII
> >
> > > I think I am responsible for this since I originally wrote the
> > > code. Sorry for this. I'm going to make back port patches to fix the
> > > problem for pre 7.2 versions.
> >
> >It doesn't really seem worth the trouble to make patches for 6.5.x.
> >If someone hasn't upgraded yet, they aren't likely to install patches
> >either.  (ISTR there are other known security risks in 6.5, anyway.)
> >If the problem is fixed in 7.0 and later, why not just tell people to
> >upgrade?
> >
> >                         regards, tom lane
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster



> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

Fri, 03 May 2002 08:11:16 GMT
Bradley Kieser <brad@kieser.net>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL 
On Thursday 02 May 2002 11:43 pm, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> Any idea which versions of Postgresql have been bundled with O/S CDs?

For RedHat:
5.0	-> PG6.2.1
5.1	-> PG6.3.2
5.2	-> PG6.3.2
6.0	-> PG6.4.2
6.1	-> PG6.5.2 (I think -- this was my first RPMset in Red Hat Linux, but I'm 
not 100% sure it was 6.5.2 -- it might have been 6.5.3)
6.2	-> PG6.5.3
7.0	-> PG7.0.2
7.1	-> PG7.0.3
7.2	-> PG7.1.3
7.2.93 > PG7.2.1

Red Hat 7.2 is the current official Red Hat, and _currently_ ships with 7.1.3.  
If this bug applies there, it should be backpatched, and I would be willing 
to roll another 7.1.3 RPM with the backpatch in it.

Prior to that -- well, I don't have any machines running those versions any 
more.  I stay pretty much on the frontline of things -- not the bleeding edge 
of RawHide, but close.  I have had the 7.2.93 beta installed, for instance.  
I'm even going to get out of the Red Hat 6.2 on SPARC business at some point, 
by going to the Aurora version (current Red Hat version ported to SPARC).  
6.2 is just old, and iptables on the 2.4 kernel is just too useful.

I guess I _could_ reinstall an OS to provide a security patch -- but methinks 
Red Hat would do that as an errata instead.  If a patch can be worked up, it 
should be passed through those channels.  Unless we want to consider rolling 
6.5.4, 7.0.4, and 7.1.4 security bugfix releases.

Of course, this is open source, and there's nothing preventing a third party 
from forking off and releasing a 6.5.4 bugfix release.  But I wouldn't count 
on getting core developers to interested in it -- the bug is fixed in the 
current version, and their time is far better spent on fixing bugs and 
developing new features in the current version.  

And I'm sure that if someone wanted to volunteer to provide a patchset for 
each affected version, Bruce might just apply them, and you might talk Marc 
into rolling them up.  But good luck doing so.  Then I'd be happy building 
RPMs out of them -- on the my current box.  You would then have to rebuild 
the RPMs for your box from my src.rpm.

'Upgrade to the next version' is not a good answer, either, particularly since 
we don't have a true upgrade path, and the problems that dump/restore 
reinstalls have brought to light.

In a similar vein, due to some baroque dependencies, I still have a client 
running RedHat 5.2 in production.  Not pretty to support.  Still at 6.5.3, 
too.

We need a better upgrade path, but that's a different discussion.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Fri, 3 May 2002 13:32:53 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > Here are the precise conditions to trigger the scenario:
> 
> > (1) the backend is PostgreSQL 6.5.x
> > (2) multibyte support is enabled (--enable-multibyte)
> > (3) the database encoding is SQL_ASCII (other encodings are not
> >     affected by the bug). 
> > (4) the client encoding is set to other than SQL_ASCII
> 
> > I think I am responsible for this since I originally wrote the
> > code. Sorry for this. I'm going to make back port patches to fix the
> > problem for pre 7.2 versions.
> 
> It doesn't really seem worth the trouble to make patches for 6.5.x.
> If someone hasn't upgraded yet, they aren't likely to install patches
> either.  (ISTR there are other known security risks in 6.5, anyway.)
> If the problem is fixed in 7.0 and later, why not just tell people to
> upgrade?

Postgresql doesn't support upgrades[1], so if we're going to release
upgrades[2], we'd need the backported fixes for 6.5, 7.0 and 7.1 

[1] Not the first time I mention this, is it?
[2] We got lucky - 6.5.x is not compiled with multibyte support.
-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

03 May 2002 15:50:37 -0400
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
> > Oops. How about:
> > 
> > foo'; DROP TABLE t1; -- foo
> > 
> > The last ' gets removed, leaving -- (81a2).
> > 
> > So you get:
> > select ... '(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1; -- (0x81a2)
> 
> This surely works:-< Ok, you gave me an enough example that shows even
> 7.1.x and 7.0.x are not safe.
> 
> Included are patches for 7.1.3. Patches for 7.0.3 and 6.5.3 will be
> posted soon.

Included are patches for 7.0.3 and 6.5.3 I promised.

BTW,

>I hope you won't make this standard practice. Because there are quite 
>significant differences that make upgrading from 7.1.x to 7.2 troublesome. 
>I can't name them offhand but they've appeared on the list from time to time.

I tend to agree above but am not sure making backport patches are
core's job. I have been providing patches for PostgreSQL for years in
Japan, and people there seem to be welcome such kind of
services. However, supporting previous versions is not a trivial job
and I don't want core members to spend their valuable time for that
kind of job, since making backport patches could be done by anyone who
are familiar with PostgreSQL.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
Sat, 04 May 2002 08:56:31 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
Trond Eivind Glomsr�d wrote:
> Postgresql doesn't support upgrades[1], so if we're going to release
> upgrades[2], we'd need the backported fixes for 6.5, 7.0 and 7.1 
> 
> [1] Not the first time I mention this, is it?

There is now /contrib/pg_upgrade.  It has all the things I can think of
for upgrading.  Hopefully it can be tested extensively for 7,3 and fully
supported.

If people don't like that it is a shell script, it can be rewritten in
another language, but the basic steps it takes will have to be done no
matter what language it is written in.

However, as I have warned before, an major change from 7.2 to 7,3 could
make it unusable.  My point is that it isn't that I haven't tried to
make an upgrade script --- the problem is that making one sometimes is
impossible.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sun, 2 Jun 2002 02:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >I hope you won't make this standard practice. Because there are quite 
> >significant differences that make upgrading from 7.1.x to 7.2 troublesome. 
> >I can't name them offhand but they've appeared on the list from time to time.
> 
> I tend to agree above but am not sure making backport patches are
> core's job. I have been providing patches for PostgreSQL for years in
> Japan, and people there seem to be welcome such kind of
> services. However, supporting previous versions is not a trivial job
> and I don't want core members to spend their valuable time for that
> kind of job, since making backport patches could be done by anyone who
> are familiar with PostgreSQL.

Yes, I know SRA and Red Hat provide extensive backpatches for older
versions;  it is a nice value-add for their support customers.   Not
sure about other PostgreSQL support companies.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sun, 2 Jun 2002 02:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL

Do we need to do any more work to document this problem?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Oops. How about:
> > 
> > foo'; DROP TABLE t1; -- foo
> > 
> > The last ' gets removed, leaving -- (81a2).
> > 
> > So you get:
> > select ... '(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1; -- (0x81a2)
> 
> This surely works:-< Ok, you gave me an enough example that shows even
> 7.1.x and 7.0.x are not safe.
> 
> Included are patches for 7.1.3. Patches for 7.0.3 and 6.5.3 will be
> posted soon.

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:11:53 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL
> Do we need to do any more work to document this problem?

Better documetation will be welcome. However which document?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > Oops. How about:
> > > 
> > > foo'; DROP TABLE t1; -- foo
> > > 
> > > The last ' gets removed, leaving -- (81a2).
> > > 
> > > So you get:
> > > select ... '(0x81a2)'; DROP TABLE t1; -- (0x81a2)
> > 
> > This surely works:-< Ok, you gave me an enough example that shows even
> > 7.1.x and 7.0.x are not safe.
> > 
> > Included are patches for 7.1.3. Patches for 7.0.3 and 6.5.3 will be
> > posted soon.
> 
> [ Attachment, skipping... ]
> 
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> 

Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:10:45 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL