I am having a slight problem getting permissions to work the way I want them.
I have a role that should generally be allowed to SELECT everywhere, there are a bunch of members to this role. One of them should NOT be allowed to select from a certain table.
I thought this would be possible by granting role membership to the general reader role and revoking SELECT from the restricted table.
It seems the the permissions of the parent role apply and not the specific permissions. Is there a way around this without having to maintain the permissions of the more restricted role or am I applying the role concept in PostgreSQL in a wrong way?
Here's a sample script:
-- as superuser
CREATE DATABASE permission_test;
\c permission_test
CREATE ROLE r_general_select;
CREATE ROLE r_restricted_select IN ROLE r_general_select;
-- set the default permissions
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA "public" GRANT SELECT ON TABLES TO "r_general_select";
CREATE TABLE "open"(
id SERIAL,
payload TEXT
);
insert into "open"(payload) values ('test');
-- covered by default privileges
GRANT SELECT ON "open" TO PUBLIC;
-- Tests
-- this is good
SET ROLE r_general_select;
SELECT * FROM "open";
RESET ROLE;
-- this is good
SET ROLE r_restricted_select;
SELECT * FROM "open";
RESET ROLE;
CREATE TABLE "restricted" (
id SERIAL,
payload TEXT
);
insert into "restricted"(payload) values ('test');
-- the role and it's members should be able to read
GRANT SELECT ON "restricted" TO r_general_select;
-- except for this one!
REVOKE SELECT ON "restricted" FROM r_restricted_select;
-- Tests
-- this is good
SET ROLE r_general_select;
SELECT * FROM restricted;
RESET ROLE;
-- this should barf with a permission violation
SET ROLE r_restricted_select;
SELECT * FROM restricted;
RESET ROLE;
--- CLEANUP
DROP OWNED BY "r_restricted_select" CASCADE;
DROP ROLE r_restricted_select ;
DROP OWNED BY "r_general_select" CASCADE;
DROP ROLE r_general_select ;
In PostgreSQL, role permissions are purely additive. There is no way in such a model to revoke from a descendant, inheriting role a permission granted on the inherited one.
To fix this you need to change your permissions approach and base it on permissions that always occur together. I usually do this by looking at functional dependencies and operational dependencies together.
Related
I have the following issue (which seems desperate for me).
I want to have two roles:
Role main_admin who owns MYTABLE.
Role child_admin who only can add columns to MYTABLE but can't select from this table (for privacy reason).
My plan was:
Add role child_admin as subrole to main_admin (so, main_admin is a group role for child_admin).
Revoke SELECT privilege from child_admin
But rovokation doesn't work because child_admin inherits SELECT privilege from main_admin. But I must include child_admin into main_admin because it is the only way to give child_admin the ability to alter MYTABLE (is it right?) So, it looks like vicious circle. Is there some way to solve my issue?
You can have main_admin define a function with SECURITY DEFINER which does the requested ALTER TABLE after validating its input. Then grant EXECUTE on this function to child_admin (who shouldn't be granted the main_admin role).
I am experiencing a weird and (to me) inexplicable behaviour related to DEFAULT PRIVILEGES. It seems default privileges cannot be revoked just for a specific schema once they have been granted database-wide.
I am currently testing this with PostgreSQL 10.5 on CentOS.
Let's say there are 3 users:
admin Owner of the database. Used to manipulate the STRUCTURE of the database (CREATE, DROP, TRUNCATE...)
manager Used for DATA manipulation (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE)
reader Used to read DATA (basically SELECT)
The idea is that:
admin will be the owner of the database and all the objects contained into it
manager will be used for data manipulation across all schemas but public (only user admin can modify data in public schema)
reader will be able to read everything.
To make things easier, this will rely on default privileges, so that newly created objects (schemas, tables, views, functions, etc.) will all have the correct permissions.
This is the first time I am trying something like that instead of a fine-grained permissions policy based on multiple users for all different schemas and apparently this setup should be very straightforward.
It turns out I am missing something.
Here is a simple test script. User admin is the owner of db database and all those commands are issued being connected to it as admin:
-- 1. User manager inherits from user "reader"
GRANT reader TO manager;
-- 2. Allow connections to the database to our users, but not PUBLIC
REVOKE ALL ON DATABASE db FROM PUBLIC;
GRANT CONNECT ON DATABASE db TO reader;
-- 3. Revoke default privileges from PUBLIC
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES REVOKE ALL ON SCHEMAS FROM PUBLIC;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES REVOKE ALL ON TABLES FROM PUBLIC;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES REVOKE ALL ON SEQUENCES FROM PUBLIC;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES REVOKE ALL ON FUNCTIONS FROM PUBLIC;
-- 4. Grant default reading privileges to user "reader"
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT USAGE ON SCHEMAS TO reader;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT SELECT ON TABLES TO reader;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT SELECT ON SEQUENCES TO reader;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT EXECUTE ON FUNCTIONS TO reader;
-- 5. Grant Defauly writing privileges to user "manager"
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON TABLES TO manager;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT USAGE ON SEQUENCES TO manager;
-- 6. Reinit "public" schema
DROP SCHEMA public;
CREATE SCHEMA public;
-- 7. HERE COMES THE WEIRD STUFF, the two following statements don't have any effect at all
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA public REVOKE INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON TABLES FROM manager;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA public REVOKE USAGE ON SEQUENCES FROM manager;
This can be easily verified like that:
-- Execute as user "admin":
CREATE TABLE public.t (id serial PRIMARY KEY, dummy integer)
-- Execute as user "manager" (it should not be allowed, but it is!)
DELETE FROM public.t;
I know I could circumvent this using some trigger functions, but the point of the question is whether this is something normal and expected, some sort of bug or am I missing something?
I have been thinking about it and the most elegant solution I could come up with relies on an Event Trigger.
Of course it does not answer my question directly, meaning that I am still wondering why default privileges cannot be used like that, but at least this meets the initial requirement of set-and-forget that default privileges would have provided.
Create a function that revokes unwanted privileges and returns an event_trigger:
CREATE FUNCTION reset_privileges() RETURNS event_trigger AS $$
BEGIN
IF EXISTS (SELECT true FROM pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands() WHERE schema_name = 'public') THEN
REVOKE INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA public FROM manager;
REVOKE USAGE ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA public FROM manager;
END IF;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
Create an actual EVENT TRIGGER (This requires superuser privileges!):
CREATE EVENT TRIGGER reset_public_schema_privileges
ON ddl_command_end WHEN TAG IN (
'CREATE TABLE',
'CREATE TABLE AS',
'CREATE VIEW',
'CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW',
'CREATE FUNCTION'
) EXECUTE PROCEDURE reset_privileges();
The function checks whether the newly created object(s) are in the public schema and eventually revokes all the unwanted privileges from the user manager.
It does not even bother to filter those objects, but rather it revokes the privileges for ALL TABLEs, VIEWs and FUNCTIONs in the public schema. Of course it can be easily customised using the object_identity field provided by pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands and a more refined logic inside the function.
According to the manual for ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES:
Default privileges that are specified per-schema are added to whatever the global default privileges are for the particular object type. This means you cannot revoke privileges per-schema if they are granted globally (either by default, or according to a previous ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES command that did not specify a schema). Per-schema REVOKE is only useful to reverse the effects of a previous per-schema GRANT.
(This is even more explicit in the examples given on that manual page.)
So I think what is happening is that in step 5 of your script, you are setting the default privilege to grant DELETE on the tables of all schemas (as a global default):
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON TABLES TO manager;
But in step 7 you are revoking from the public schema specifically. This revocation has no effect on the global grant, so the DELETE (and other) privileges will still be granted:
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA public REVOKE INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON TABLES FROM manager;
I think I would either (a) bite the bullet and add default privileges for each schema (which isn't "fire-and-forget" but is more explicit) or (b) challenge why I need the public schema to exist, aiming to remove it to simplify this situation.
Apart from every other security measure, how does it benefit security if a table owner is a nologin role in Postgres?
Suppose my master role that can login is admin123 (Amazon RDS).
For example. I could do A:
CREATE ROLE nologinrole;
GRANT nologinrole TO admin123;
CREATE SCHEMA data;
ALTER SCHEMA data OWNER TO nologinrole;
CREATE TABLE data.test(...);
ALTER TABLE data.test OWNER TO nologinrole;
Or simply B.
CREATE SCHEMA data;
CREATE TABLE data.test(...);
-- All owned by admin123
Is A safer because the schema and table are owned by a role that cannot login? Why? I suppose not since the admin123 role that is able to log in, is granted to the nologin role. And if that's the case I could just as well do B. But I'm curious to learn why A is better.
I am unsure about what does a PostgreSQL table owner means. I notice that it changes an attribute of the table itself and not about the owner because it is specified through an
ALTER TABLE table_name OWNER TO role_name;
You can see who is owner in certain table:
select * from pg_tables where tablename = 'my_tbl';
or you can see all tables by certain owner:
select * from pg_tables where tableowner = 'username';
The owner is (if nothing else happened) the user (role) that created the table. So if user arthur runs CREATE TABLE foo (id INTEGER), arthur owns the table.
The owner of a table has all privileges on it - including the privilege to drop it. Or the privilege to grant other users (roles) access to the table.
The SQL script generated by pg_dump typically includes the ALTER TABLE ... OWNER TO ... statement as those scripts are intended to be run by the DBA and in that case all tables would be owned by the DBA - which means the "real" owner could not change or access the tables.
Some excerpts from the official docs:
When an object is created, it is assigned an owner. The owner is normally the role that executed the creation statement. For most kinds of objects, the initial state is that only the owner (or a superuser) can do anything with the object. To allow other roles to use it, privileges must be granted.
The right to modify or destroy an object is inherent in being the object's owner, and cannot be granted or revoked in itself. (However, like all privileges, that right can be inherited by members of the owning role; see Section 21.3.)
Ordinarily, only the object's owner (or a superuser) can grant or revoke privileges on an object.
An object's owner can choose to revoke their own ordinary privileges, for example to make a table read-only for themselves as well as others. But owners are always treated as holding all grant options, so they can always re-grant their own privileges.
I'm trying to make restricted DB users for the app I'm working on, and I want to drop the Postgres database user I'm using for experimenting. Is there any way to drop the user without having to revoke all his rights manually first, or revoke all the grants a user has?
How about
DROP USER <username>
This is actually an alias for DROP ROLE.
You have to explicity drop any privileges associated with that user, also to move its ownership to other roles (or drop the object).
This is best achieved by
REASSIGN OWNED BY <olduser> TO <newuser>
and
DROP OWNED BY <olduser>
The latter will remove any privileges granted to the user.
See the postgres docs for DROP ROLE and the more detailed description of this.
Addition:
Apparently, trying to drop a user by using the commands mentioned here will only work if you are executing them while being connected to the same database that the original GRANTS were made from, as discussed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/83894A1821034948BA27FE4DAA47427928F7C29922%40apde03.APD.Satcom.Local
The accepted answer resulted in errors for me when attempting REASSIGN OWNED BY or DROP OWNED BY. The following worked for me:
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA public FROM username;
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA public FROM username;
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL FUNCTIONS IN SCHEMA public FROM username;
DROP USER username;
The user may have privileges in other schemas, in which case you will have to run the appropriate REVOKE line with "public" replaced by the correct schema. To show all of the schemas and privilege types for a user, I edited the \dp command to make this query:
SELECT
n.nspname as "Schema",
CASE c.relkind
WHEN 'r' THEN 'table'
WHEN 'v' THEN 'view'
WHEN 'm' THEN 'materialized view'
WHEN 'S' THEN 'sequence'
WHEN 'f' THEN 'foreign table'
END as "Type"
FROM pg_catalog.pg_class c
LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_namespace n ON n.oid = c.relnamespace
WHERE pg_catalog.array_to_string(c.relacl, E'\n') LIKE '%username%';
I'm not sure which privilege types correspond to revoking on TABLES, SEQUENCES, or FUNCTIONS, but I think all of them fall under one of the three.
Here's what's finally worked for me :
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA myschem FROM user_mike;
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA myschem FROM user_mike;
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL FUNCTIONS IN SCHEMA myschem FROM user_mike;
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON SCHEMA myschem FROM user_mike;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA myschem REVOKE ALL ON SEQUENCES FROM user_mike;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA myschem REVOKE ALL ON TABLES FROM user_mike;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA myschem REVOKE ALL ON FUNCTIONS FROM user_mike;
REVOKE USAGE ON SCHEMA myschem FROM user_mike;
REASSIGN OWNED BY user_mike TO masteruser;
DROP USER user_mike ;
Also note, if you have explicitly granted:
CONNECT ON DATABASE xxx TO GROUP ,
you will need to revoke this separately from DROP OWNED BY, using:
REVOKE CONNECT ON DATABASE xxx FROM GROUP
This worked for me:
DROP OWNED BY dbuser
and then:
DROP USER dbuser
I had to add one more line to REVOKE...
After running:
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA public FROM username;
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA public FROM username;
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL FUNCTIONS IN SCHEMA public FROM username;
I was still receiving the error:
username cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it DETAIL: privileges for schema public
I was missing this:
REVOKE USAGE ON SCHEMA public FROM username;
Then I was able to drop the role.
DROP USER username;
There is no REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL VIEWS, so I ended with:
do $$
DECLARE r record;
begin
for r in select * from pg_views where schemaname = 'myschem'
loop
execute 'revoke all on ' || quote_ident(r.schemaname) ||'.'|| quote_ident(r.viewname) || ' from "XUSER"';
end loop;
end $$;
and usual:
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON DATABASE mydb FROM "XUSER";
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON SCHEMA myschem FROM "XUSER";
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA myschem FROM "XUSER";
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA myschem FROM "XUSER";
REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL FUNCTIONS IN SCHEMA myschem FROM "XUSER";
for the following to succeed:
drop role "XUSER";
This should work:
REVOKE ALL ON SCHEMA public FROM myuser;
REVOKE ALL ON DATABASE mydb FROM myuser;
DROP USER myuser;
In commandline, there is a command dropuser available to do drop user from postgres.
$ dropuser someuser
https://dbtut.com/index.php/2018/07/09/role-x-cannot-be-dropped-because-some-objects-depend-on-it/
Checked and there was no ownership for any object in db and later realised it may be due to foreign data wrapper mapping created for user and grant permission.
So two actions were required
Drop user mapping
Revoke usage on foreign data wrapper.
sample queries
DROP USER MAPPING FOR username SERVER foreignservername
REVOKE ALL ON FOREIGN SERVER foreignservername FROM username
The Postgres documentation has a clear answer to this - this is the ONLY sanctioned answer:
REASSIGN OWNED BY doomed_role TO successor_role;
DROP OWNED BY doomed_role;
-- repeat the above commands in each database of the cluster
DROP ROLE doomed_role;
Key points:
-- repeat the above commands in each database of the cluster
"it's typically necessary to run both REASSIGN OWNED and DROP OWNED (in that order!) to fully remove the dependencies of a role to be dropped."
I faced the same problem and now found a way to solve it.
First you have to delete the database of the user that you wish to drop. Then the user can be easily deleted.
I created an user named "msf" and struggled a while to delete the user and recreate it. I followed the below steps and Got succeeded.
1) Drop the database
dropdb msf
2) drop the user
dropuser msf
Now I got the user successfully dropped.