ID CVE-2017-7485
Summary In PostgreSQL 9.3.x before 9.3.17, 9.4.x before 9.4.12, 9.5.x before 9.5.7, and 9.6.x before 9.6.3, it was found that the PGREQUIRESSL environment variable was no longer enforcing a SSL/TLS connection to a PostgreSQL server. An active Man-in-the-Middle attacker could use this flaw to strip the SSL/TLS protection from a connection between a client and a server.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • PostgreSQL PostgreSQL 9.3
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3
  • PostgreSQL PostgreSQL 9.3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.1
  • PostgreSQL PostgreSQL 9.3.2
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.2
  • PostgreSQL PostgreSQL 9.3.3
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.3
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.4
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.4
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.5
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.5
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.6
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.6
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.7
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.7
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.8
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.8
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.9
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.9
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.10
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.10
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.11
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.11
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.12
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.12
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.13
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.13
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.14
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.14
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.15
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.15
  • PostgreSQL 9.3.16
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.3.16
  • PostgreSQL PostgreSQL 9.4
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.1
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.1
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.2
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.2
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.3
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.3
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.4
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.4
  • PostgreSQL PostgreSQL 9.4.5
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.5
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.6
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.6
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.7
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.7
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.8
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.8
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.9
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.9
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.10
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.10
  • PostgreSQL 9.4.11
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.4.11
  • PostgreSQL PostgreSQL 9.5
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.5
  • PostgreSQL 9.5.1
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.5.1
  • PostgreSQL 9.5.2
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.5.2
  • PostgreSQL 9.5.3
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.5.3
  • PostgreSQL 9.5.4
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.5.4
  • PostgreSQL 9.5.5
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.5.5
  • PostgreSQL 9.5.6
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.5.6
  • PostgreSQL 9.6
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.6
  • PostgreSQL 9.6.1
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.6.1
  • PostgreSQL 9.6.2
    cpe:2.3:a:postgresql:postgresql:9.6.2
CVSS
Base: 4.3
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-311
CAPEC
  • Interception
    An attacker monitors data streams to or from a target in order to gather information. This attack may be undertaken to gather information to support a later attack or the data collected may be the end goal of the attack. This attack usually involves sniffing network traffic, but may include observing other types of data streams, such as radio. In most varieties of this attack, the attacker is passive and simply observes regular communication, however in some variants the attacker may attempt to initiate the establishment of a data stream or influence the nature of the data transmitted. However, in all variants of this attack, and distinguishing this attack from other data collection methods, the attacker is not the intended recipient of the data stream. Unlike some other data leakage attacks, the attacker is observing explicit data channels (e.g. network traffic) and reading the content. This differs from attacks that collect more qualitative information, such as communication volume, or other information not explicitly communicated via a data stream.
  • Screen Temporary Files for Sensitive Information
    An attacker exploits the temporary, insecure storage of information by monitoring the content of files used to store temp data during an application's routine execution flow. Many applications use temporary files to accelerate processing or to provide records of state across multiple executions of the application. Sometimes, however, these temporary files may end up storing sensitive information. By screening an application's temporary files, an attacker might be able to discover such sensitive information. For example, web browsers often cache content to accelerate subsequent lookups. If the content contains sensitive information then the attacker could recover this from the web cache.
  • Sniffing Attacks
    An attacker monitors information transmitted between logical or physical nodes of a network. The attacker need not be able to prevent reception or change content but must simply be able to observe and read the traffic. The attacker might precipitate or indirectly influence the content of the observed transaction, but the attacker is never the intended recipient of the information. Any transmission medium can theoretically be sniffed if the attacker can listen to the contents between the sender and recipient.
  • Sniffing Network Traffic
    An attacker monitoring network traffic between nodes of a public or multicast network. The attacker need not be able to prevent reception or change content but must simply be able to observe and read the traffic. The attacker might precipitate or indirectly influence the content of the observed transaction, but the attacker is never the intended recipient of the information. This differs from other sniffing attacks in that it is over a public network rather via some other communications channel, such as radio.
  • Lifting Sensitive Data from the Client
    An attacker examines an available client application for the presence of sensitive information. This information may be stored in configuration files, embedded within the application itself, or stored in other ways. Sensitive information may include long-term keys, passwords, credit card or financial information, and other private material that the client uses in its interactions with the server. While servers are (hopefully) protected with professional security administrators, most users may be less skilled at protecting their clients. As a result, the user client may represent a weak link that an attacker can exploit. If an attacker can gain access to a client installation, they may be able to detect and lift sensitive information that could be used directly (such as financial information), or allow the attacker to subvert future communication between the client and the server. In some cases, it may not even be necessary to gain access to another user's installation - if all instances of the client software are embedded with the same sensitive information (for example, long term keys for communication with the server) then the attacker must simply find a way to gain their own copy of the client in order to perform this attack.
  • Footprinting
    An attacker engages in probing and exploration activity to identify constituents and properties of the target. Footprinting is a general term to describe a variety of information gathering techniques, often used by attackers in preparation for some attack. It consists of using tools to learn as much as possible about the composition, configuration, and security mechanisms of the targeted application, system or network. Information that might be collected during a footprinting effort could include open ports, applications and their versions, network topology, and similar information. While footprinting is not intended to be damaging (although certain activities, such as network scans, can sometimes cause disruptions to vulnerable applications inadvertently) it may often pave the way for more damaging attacks.
  • Lifting cached, sensitive data embedded in client distributions (thick or thin)
    An attacker examines a target application's cache for sensitive information. Many applications that communicate with remote entities or which perform intensive calculations utilize caches to improve efficiency. However, if the application computes or receives sensitive information and the cache is not appropriately protected, an attacker can browse the cache and retrieve this information. This can result in the disclosure of sensitive information.
  • Passively Sniffing and Capturing Application Code Bound for an Authorized Client During Dynamic Update
    Attackers can capture application code bound for an authorized client during a dynamic update and can use it, as-is or through reverse-engineering, to glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server.
  • Passively Sniffing and Capturing Application Code Bound for an Authorized Client During Patching
    Attackers can capture application code bound for an authorized client during patching and can use it, as-is or through reverse-engineering, to glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server.
  • Passively Sniffing and Capturing Application Code Bound for an Authorized Client During Initial Distribution
    Attackers can capture new application installation code bound for an authorized client during initial distribution and can use it, as-is or through reverse-engineering, to glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server.
  • Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
    This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form of this attack involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the attacker to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the attacker before it is sent back to the server. Here the attacker seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information.
  • Lifting Data Embedded in Client Distributions
    An attacker can resort to stealing data embedded in client distributions or client code in order to gain certain information. This information can reveal confidential contents, such as account numbers, or can be used as an intermediate step in a larger attack (such as by stealing keys/credentials).
  • Harvesting Usernames or UserIDs via Application API Event Monitoring
    An attacker hosts an event within an application framework and then monitors the data exchanged during the course of the event for the purpose of harvesting any important data leaked during the transactions. One example could be harvesting lists of usernames or userIDs for the purpose of sending spam messages to those users. One example of this type of attack involves the attacker creating an event within the sub-application. Assume the attacker hosts a "virtual sale" of rare items. As other users enter the event, the attacker records via MITM proxy the user_ids and usernames of everyone who attends. The attacker would then be able to spam those users within the application using an automated script.
  • Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle
    An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of MITM software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Man-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
  • Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation
    An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
  • Application API Navigation Remapping
    An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
  • Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content
    An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, spam-like content, or links to the attackers' code. In general, content-spoofing within an application API can be employed to stage many different types of attacks varied based on the attackers' intent. When the goal is to spread malware, deceptive content is created such as modified links, buttons, or images, that entice users to click on those items, all of which point to a malicious URI. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the destination of various application interface elements.
  • Application API Button Hijacking
    An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. For example, an in-game event occurs and the attacker traps the result, which turns out to be a form that will be populated to their primary profile. The attacker, using a MITM proxy, observes the following data: By altering the destination of "Claim_Link" to point to the attackers' server an unwitting victim can be enticed to click the link. Another example would be for the attacker to rewrite the button destinations for an event so that clicking "Yes" or "No" causes the user to load the attackers' code.
  • Content Spoofing Via Application API Manipulation
    An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, spam-like content, or links to the attackers' code. In general, content-spoofing within an application API can be employed to stage many different types of attacks varied based on the attackers' intent. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system.
  • Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content
    An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
  • Passively Sniff and Capture Application Code Bound for Authorized Client
    Attackers can capture application code bound for the client and can use it, as-is or through reverse-engineering, to glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.
nessus via4
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_SU-2017-1441-1.NASL
    description This update for postgresql93 fixes the following issues: The PostgreSQL package was updated to 9.3.17, bringing various bug and security fixes. Bug fixes : - bsc#1029547: Fix tests with timezone 2017a - CVE-2017-7486: Restrict visibility of pg_user_mappings.umoptions, to protect passwords stored as user mapping options. (bsc#1037624) - CVE-2017-7485: Recognize PGREQUIRESSL variable again. (bsc#1038293) - CVE-2017-7484: Prevent exposure of statistical information via leaky operators. (bsc#1037603) More details can be found in the PostgreSQL release announcements : - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3-17.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3-16.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3-15.html Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the SUSE security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-18
    plugin id 100538
    published 2017-05-31
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100538
    title SUSE SLES12 Security Update : postgresql93 (SUSE-SU-2017:1441-1)
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-201710-06.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-201710-06 (PostgreSQL: Multiple vulnerabilities) Multiple vulnerabilities have been discovered in PostgreSQL. Please review the referenced CVE identifiers for details. Impact : A remote attacker could escalate privileges, cause a Denial of Service condition, obtain passwords, cause a loss in information, or obtain sensitive information. Workaround : There is no known workaround at this time.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-01-26
    plugin id 103724
    published 2017-10-09
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=103724
    title GLSA-201710-06 : PostgreSQL: Multiple vulnerabilities
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_SU-2017-1690-1.NASL
    description This update for postgresql94 to 9.4.12 fixes the following issues: Upstream changelogs : - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/release-9-4-12.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/release-9-4-11.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/release-9-4-10.html Security issues fixed : - CVE-2017-7486: Restrict visibility of pg_user_mappings.umoptions, to protect passwords stored as user mapping options. (bsc#1037624) Please note that manual action is needed to fix this in existing databases See the upstream release notes for details. - CVE-2017-7485: recognize PGREQUIRESSL variable again. (bsc#1038293) - CVE-2017-7484: Prevent exposure of statistical information via leaky operators. (bsc#1037603) Changes in version 9.4.12 : - Build corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY - Fixes for visibility and write-ahead-log stability Changes in version 9.4.10 : - Fix WAL-logging of truncation of relation free space maps and visibility maps - Fix incorrect creation of GIN index WAL records on big-endian machines - Fix SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE to correctly lock tuples that have been updated by a subsequently-aborted transaction - Fix EvalPlanQual rechecks involving CTE scans - Fix improper repetition of previous results from hashed aggregation in a subquery The libraries libpq and libecpg are now supplied by postgresql 9.6. Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the SUSE security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-18
    plugin id 101060
    published 2017-06-27
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=101060
    title SUSE SLED12 / SLES12 Security Update : postgresql94 (SUSE-SU-2017:1690-1)
  • NASL family Fedora Local Security Checks
    NASL id FEDORA_2017-0D5817EFC0.NASL
    description Fixes CVE-2017-7484 CVE-2017-7485 CVE-2017-7486. Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Fedora update system website. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-02-01
    plugin id 101572
    published 2017-07-17
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=101572
    title Fedora 26 : mingw-postgresql (2017-0d5817efc0)
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DSA-3851.NASL
    description Several vulnerabilities have been found in the PostgreSQL database system : - CVE-2017-7484 Robert Haas discovered that some selectivity estimators did not validate user privileges which could result in information disclosure. - CVE-2017-7485 Daniel Gustafsson discovered that the PGREQUIRESSL environment variable did no longer enforce a TLS connection. - CVE-2017-7486 Andrew Wheelwright discovered that user mappings were insufficiently restricted.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 100165
    published 2017-05-15
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100165
    title Debian DSA-3851-1 : postgresql-9.4 - security update
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_SU-2017-1783-1.NASL
    description This update for postgresql93 fixes the following issues : - bsc#1029547: Fix tests with timezone 2017a - CVE-2017-7486: Restrict visibility of pg_user_mappings.umoptions, to protect passwords stored as user mapping options. (bsc#1037624) - CVE-2017-7485: Recognize PGREQUIRESSL variable again. (bsc#1038293) - CVE-2017-7484: Prevent exposure of statistical information via leaky operators. (bsc#1037603) Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the SUSE security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-30
    plugin id 101260
    published 2017-07-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=101260
    title SUSE SLES11 Security Update : postgresql94 (SUSE-SU-2017:1783-1)
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2017-1838.NASL
    description An update for rh-postgresql95-postgresql is now available for Red Hat Satellite 5.8 and Red Hat Satellite 5.8 ELS. Red Hat Product Security has rated this update as having a security impact of Moderate. A Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base score, which gives a detailed severity rating, is available for each vulnerability from the CVE link(s) in the References section. This update applies only to Satellite 5.8 instances using either embedded or managed PostgreSQL databases. There are manual steps required in order to finish the migration from postgresql92-postgresql to rh-postgresql95-postgresql. If these steps are not undertaken, the affected Satellite will continue to use PostgreSQL 9.2. postgresql92-postgresql will be upgraded automatically to rh-postgresql95-postgresql as part of an upgrade to Satellite 5.8. PostgreSQL is an advanced object-relational database management system (DBMS). Security Fix(es) : * It was found that some selectivity estimation functions did not check user privileges before providing information from pg_statistic, possibly leaking information. A non-administrative database user could use this flaw to steal some information from tables they are otherwise not allowed to access. (CVE-2017-7484) * It was discovered that the PostgreSQL client library (libpq) did not enforce the use of TLS/SSL for a connection to a PostgreSQL server when the PGREQUIRESSL environment variable was set. An man-in-the-middle attacker could use this flaw to strip the SSL/TLS protection from a connection between a client and a server. (CVE-2017-7485) * It was found that the pg_user_mappings view could disclose information about user mappings to a foreign database to non-administrative database users. A database user with USAGE privilege for this mapping could, when querying the view, obtain user mapping data, such as the username and password used to connect to the foreign database. (CVE-2017-7486) Red Hat would like to thank the PostgreSQL project for reporting these issues. Upstream acknowledges Robert Haas as the original reporter of CVE-2017-7484; Daniel Gustafsson as the original reporter of CVE-2017-7485; and Andrew Wheelwright as the original reporter of CVE-2017-7486.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-27
    plugin id 102142
    published 2017-08-03
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=102142
    title RHEL 5 : rh-postgresql95-postgresql (RHSA-2017:1838)
  • NASL family Amazon Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id ALA_ALAS-2017-839.NASL
    description Selectivity estimators bypass SELECT privilege checks It was found that some selectivity estimation functions did not check user privileges before providing information from pg_statistic, possibly leaking information. An unprivileged attacker could use this flaw to steal some information from tables they are otherwise not allowed to access. (CVE-2017-7484) libpq ignores PGREQUIRESSL environment variable It was found that the PGREQUIRESSL was no longer enforcing a SSL/TLS connection to a PostgreSQL server. An active Man-in-the-Middle attacker could use this flaw to strip the SSL/TLS protection from a connection between a client and a server. (CVE-2017-7485) pg_user_mappings view discloses foreign server passwords It was found that the pg_user_mappings view from postgresql could disclose information about user mappings to a foreign database to unprivileged users. An authenticated attacker with USAGE privilege for this mapping could, when querying the view, obtain user mapping data, such as the username and password used to connect to the foreign database. (CVE-2017-7486)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-04-18
    plugin id 100640
    published 2017-06-07
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100640
    title Amazon Linux AMI : postgresql93 / postgresql94,postgresql95 (ALAS-2017-839)
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id OPENSUSE-2017-657.NASL
    description This update for postgresql93 fixes the following issues : The PostgreSQL package was updated to 9.3.17, bringing various bug and security fixes. Security fixes : - CVE-2017-7486: Restrict visibility of pg_user_mappings.umoptions, to protect passwords stored as user mapping options. (bsc#1037624) - CVE-2017-7485: Recognize PGREQUIRESSL variable again. (bsc#1038293) - CVE-2017-7484: Prevent exposure of statistical information via leaky operators. (bsc#1037603) More details can be found in the PostgreSQL release announcements : - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3-17.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3-16.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3-15.html This update was imported from the SUSE:SLE-12:Update update project.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-18
    plugin id 100659
    published 2017-06-07
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100659
    title openSUSE Security Update : postgresql93 (openSUSE-2017-657)
  • NASL family Databases
    NASL id POSTGRESQL_20170511.NASL
    description The version of PostgreSQL installed on the remote host is 9.2.x prior to 9.2.21, 9.3.x prior to 9.3.17, 9.4.x prior to 9.4.12, 9.5.x prior to 9.5.7, or 9.6.x prior to 9.6.3. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - A information disclosure vulnerability exists in unspecified selectivity estimation functions due to improper checking of user privileges before providing information from pg_statistics. An authenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to disclose potentially sensitive information from restricted tables. (CVE-2017-7484) - A flaw exists because the PGREQUIRESSL environment variable setting is not properly honored, which results in a failure to require appropriate SSL/TLS connections. A man-in-the-middle attacker can exploit this to cause an insecure, non-SSL/TLS connection between a client and and a server. Note that version 9.2.x is not affected by this vulnerability. (CVE-2017-7485) - A information disclosure vulnerability exists in the pg_user_mappings view that allows access to user mappings which may contain passwords that have persisted from the CREATE USER MAPPING command. An authenticated, remote attacker who has USAGE privilege on the associated foreign server can exploit this to disclose foreign server passwords. (CVE-2017-7486)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-14
    plugin id 100260
    published 2017-05-17
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100260
    title PostgreSQL 9.2.x < 9.2.21 / 9.3.x < 9.3.17 / 9.4.x < 9.4.12 / 9.5.x < 9.5.7 / 9.6.x < 9.6.3 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id OPENSUSE-2017-770.NASL
    description This update for postgresql94 to 9.4.12 fixes the following issues : Upstream changelogs : - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/release-9-4-12.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/release-9-4-11.html - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/release-9-4-10.html Security issues fixed : - CVE-2017-7486: Restrict visibility of pg_user_mappings.umoptions, to protect passwords stored as user mapping options. (bsc#1037624) Please note that manual action is needed to fix this in existing databases See the upstream release notes for details. - CVE-2017-7485: recognize PGREQUIRESSL variable again. (bsc#1038293) - CVE-2017-7484: Prevent exposure of statistical information via leaky operators. (bsc#1037603) Changes in version 9.4.12 : - Build corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY - Fixes for visibility and write-ahead-log stability Changes in version 9.4.10 : - Fix WAL-logging of truncation of relation free space maps and visibility maps - Fix incorrect creation of GIN index WAL records on big-endian machines - Fix SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE to correctly lock tuples that have been updated by a subsequently-aborted transaction - Fix EvalPlanQual rechecks involving CTE scans - Fix improper repetition of previous results from hashed aggregation in a subquery The libraries libpq and libecpg are now supplied by postgresql 9.6. This update was imported from the SUSE:SLE-12:Update update project.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-18
    plugin id 101220
    published 2017-07-05
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=101220
    title openSUSE Security Update : postgresql94 (openSUSE-2017-770)
redhat via4
advisories
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2017:1677
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2017:1678
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2017:1838
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2017:2425
refmap via4
bid 98461
confirm https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1746/
debian DSA-3851
gentoo GLSA-201710-06
sectrack 1038476
Last major update 12-05-2017 - 15:29
Published 12-05-2017 - 15:29
Last modified 02-10-2019 - 20:03
Back to Top