CVE-2022-2625
Good afternoon to everyone! Tell me, is there a CVE-2022-2625 vulnerability in posgresql 9.5? If so, who knows how to patch it? Patches from version 10 are not suitable at all...
Re[2]: CVE-2022-2625
All business processes are hooked on postgresql 9.5. There is no way to update. Unfortunately, I don't have the proper qualifications to change it. >Четверг, 15 сентября 2022, 1:58 +09:00 от Laurenz Albe >: > >On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 17:02 +0300, misha1966 misha1966 wrote: >> Tell me, is there a CVE-2022-2625 vulnerability in posgresql 9.5? >> If so, who knows how to patch it? Patches from version 10 are not suitable >> at all... >Yes, that vulnerability exists in 9.5. > >To patch that, you'd have to try and backpatch the commit to 9.5 yourself: >https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=b9b21acc766db54d8c337d508d0fe2f5bf2daab0 > >Since 9.5 is out of support, there are no more bugfixes for it provided >by the community. If security were a real concern for you, you would >certainly not be running a PostgreSQL version that is out of support. > >Yours, >Laurenz Albe >-- >Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com >
Re[2]: CVE-2022-2625
All right :( >Четверг, 15 сентября 2022, 17:55 +09:00 от Ron : > >Software is only certified for 9.5? Hopefully you're running 9.5.25. > >I feel your pain... we've got some databases that will stay at 9.6 for another >year. > >On 9/14/22 23:24, misha1966 misha1966 wrote: >>All business processes are hooked on postgresql 9.5. There is no way to >>update. >>Unfortunately, I don't have the proper qualifications to change it. >> >>>Четверг, 15 сентября 2022, 1:58 +09:00 от Laurenz Albe >>> : >>> >>>On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 17:02 +0300, misha1966 misha1966 wrote: >>>> Tell me, is there a CVE-2022-2625 vulnerability in posgresql 9.5? >>>> If so, who knows how to patch it? Patches from version 10 are not suitable >>>> at all... >>>Yes, that vulnerability exists in 9.5. >>> >>>To patch that, you'd have to try and backpatch the commit to 9.5 yourself: >>>https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=b9b21acc766db54d8c337d508d0fe2f5bf2daab0 >>> >>>Since 9.5 is out of support, there are no more bugfixes for it provided >>>by the community. If security were a real concern for you, you would >>>certainly not be running a PostgreSQL version that is out of support. >>> >>>Yours, >>>Laurenz Albe >>>-- >>>Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com >>> >> > >-- >Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
Re[2]: CVE-2022-2625
Is there a patch for 9.6 ? >Четверг, 15 сентября 2022, 17:55 +09:00 от Ron : > >Software is only certified for 9.5? Hopefully you're running 9.5.25. > >I feel your pain... we've got some databases that will stay at 9.6 for another >year. > >On 9/14/22 23:24, misha1966 misha1966 wrote: >>All business processes are hooked on postgresql 9.5. There is no way to >>update. >>Unfortunately, I don't have the proper qualifications to change it. >> >>>Четверг, 15 сентября 2022, 1:58 +09:00 от Laurenz Albe >>> : >>> >>>On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 17:02 +0300, misha1966 misha1966 wrote: >>>> Tell me, is there a CVE-2022-2625 vulnerability in posgresql 9.5? >>>> If so, who knows how to patch it? Patches from version 10 are not suitable >>>> at all... >>>Yes, that vulnerability exists in 9.5. >>> >>>To patch that, you'd have to try and backpatch the commit to 9.5 yourself: >>>https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=b9b21acc766db54d8c337d508d0fe2f5bf2daab0 >>> >>>Since 9.5 is out of support, there are no more bugfixes for it provided >>>by the community. If security were a real concern for you, you would >>>certainly not be running a PostgreSQL version that is out of support. >>> >>>Yours, >>>Laurenz Albe >>>-- >>>Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com >>> >> > >-- >Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
Re[4]: CVE-2022-2625
How can I check this vulnerability. Which SQL to execute? >Четверг, 15 сентября 2022, 17:22 +09:00 от Laurenz Albe >: > >On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 07:24 +0300, misha1966 misha1966 wrote: >> > Четверг, 15 сентября 2022, 1:58 +09:00 от Laurenz Albe < >> > laurenz.a...@cybertec.at >: >> > >> > On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 17:02 +0300, misha1966 misha1966 wrote: >> > > Tell me, is there a CVE-2022-2625 vulnerability in posgresql 9.5? >> > > If so, who knows how to patch it? Patches from version 10 are not >> > > suitable at all... >> > >> > Yes, that vulnerability exists in 9.5. >> > >> > To patch that, you'd have to try and backpatch the commit to 9.5 yourself: >> > >> > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=b9b21acc766db54d8c337d508d0fe2f5bf2daab0 >> > >> > Since 9.5 is out of support, there are no more bugfixes for it provided >> > by the community. If security were a real concern for you, you would >> > certainly not be running a PostgreSQL version that is out of support. >> >> All business processes are hooked on postgresql 9.5. There is no way to >> update. >> Unfortunately, I don't have the proper qualifications to change it. >So these "business processes" are more important than security at your site. >That's fine; everybody has to make their choices. >But remember that there are also known data-eating bugs lurking in your >outdated software. > >Yours, >Laurenz Albe >-- >Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
Re[4]: CVE-2022-2625
Thank you all! Everything worked out! CVE-2022-2625 contains a lot more than it seems... >Пятница, 16 сентября 2022, 0:19 +09:00 от Tom Lane : > >=?UTF-8?B?bWlzaGExOTY2IG1pc2hhMTk2Ng==?= < mmisha1...@bk.ru > writes: >> Is there a patch for 9.6 ? >No; that's out of support too. > >You might find that adapting the v10 patch back to 9.6, and >thence to 9.5, would be easier than trying to do it in one step. > >I'm a little bemused by your fixation on this particular CVE, >though. As such things go, it's not a very big deal. It's only >of interest if you are routinely installing new extensions, *and* >those extensions' scripts contain insecure uses of CREATE OR >REPLACE/CREATE IF NOT EXISTS, *and* you can't fix the extensions >instead. I would not have thought an institution that's so >frozen that it can't update to an in-support PG version would be >doing a lot of new extension installations. > >In any case, the real thing you ought to be focusing on is whether >you are running back-ported patches for any of the *other* CVE-worthy >security bugs we've fixed since 9.5 went EOL. And how about the >data-corrupting bugs? Most longtime PG developers think data >corruption hazards are a good deal more important than a lot of >the stuff we assign CVEs to. Almost every CVE we've ever issued is >only relevant if you have hostile actors able to issue arbitrary SQL >in your database, in which case you're in a world of trouble anyway. > >regards, tom lane
