db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Grant and Revoke, Part I ... DERBY-464...
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:04:01 GMT
Francois Orsini wrote:

> I think we just *cannot* let anyone override the 'defaultConnectionMode'
> database configuration property - The user would have had to be granted
> a 'system privilege' of some sort. Now as far as migrating a secure
> database to a legacy mode one, there would need to be good reasons for
> that, such as running an embedded application with no need for a secure
> database mode. But then if we allow migration of secure mode to legacy,
> might as well keep the property scheme as you have originally defined it
> and no new connection url property.
> 
> --francois
> 
> On 1/8/06, *Satheesh Bandaram* < satheesh@sourcery.org
> <mailto:satheesh@sourcery.org>> wrote:
> 
>     We could use 'defaultConnectionMode' property to store secureMode
>     like you said, but ..
> 
>        1. What would happen if a user tries to set the value to
>           'fullAccess' or 'readOnlyAccess' in a secure database? Should
>           we catch the case and raise an error since otherwise the
>           database would switch to being a legacy database.
>        2. While I am not promising migration from secure database to
>           legacy database, overloading this property will make the value
>           being lost if someone adds logic to provide this migration
>           later and if someone tries to do a roundtrip of a database
>           from legacy mode...
> 
>     Satheesh
> 
> 
>     Francois Orsini wrote:
> 
>>     Sounds good.
>>
>>     Where would you persist the secureMode value?
>>
>>     I guess it would then be ok to consider 'defaultConnectionMode' to
>>     be legacy only unless you are thinking of still using it to store
>>     secureMode value? Could you clarify please.
>>
>>     --francois
>>
>>     On 1/6/06, *Satheesh Bandaram* <satheesh@sourcery.org
>>     <mailto:satheesh@sourcery.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         I have been thinking if use of properties is the right way to
>>         chose sqlStandard security mode or legacy mode... Properties
>>         are meant to be more dynamic in nature and since I don't yet
>>         plan to allow switching between SqlStandard mode (with support
>>         for Grant and Revoke) to legacy mode.
>>
>>         I think use of URL property to indicate which security mode is
>>         wanted during a database create time is more natural. If one
>>         wishes to create a database with support for Grant and Revoke,
>>         it could be specified by a URL attribute like secureMode.
>>
>>         ij> connect 'jdbc:derby:securedb;create=true;*secureMode=true*';
>>
>>         If secureMode is not specified, current default of legacy mode
>>         database without grant/revoke capability would be created in
>>         10.2 release. If secureMode is true, a database with support
>>         for grant/revoke statements is created. In this database,
>>         property value of 'defaultConnectionMode' is a no-op.

I'm still thinking about this 'secureMode' approach and the interaction
with the existing authentication model. One issue I do have is the name
of the attribute, 'secureMode'. I don't believe that the current
grant/revoke syntax makes Derby completely secure, thus this attribute
may mislead people. Note sure I have a better name though. :-(

Dan.


Mime
View raw message