revoke PUBLIC execute on raw_query#1045
Open
x4m wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
raw_query(TEXT) executes arbitrary DuckDB SQL, including HTTP requests to any host and access to any S3 bucket the server can reach. Leaving it callable by PUBLIC is an SSRF and data-exfiltration vector. The REVOKE on line 123 was inadvertently overridden by a later GRANT ALL TO PUBLIC near the aggregate definitions. Replace both GRANT ALL lines with explicit REVOKE statements so the intent is clear and survives future file edits.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
raw_query(TEXT) executes arbitrary DuckDB SQL, including HTTP requests to any host and access to any S3 bucket the server can reach. Leaving it callable by public might be dangerous.
I suppose the REVOKE on line 123 was inadvertently overridden by a later GRANT ALL TO PUBLIC near the aggregate definitions. Or do I misunderstand something?
I'm not sure, but maybe recycle_ddb() also deserves same treating.