db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rick Hillegas (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2196) Run standalone network server with security manager by default
Date Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:34:06 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12474818
] 

Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-2196:
--------------------------------------

Thanks, Andrew and Bernt, for the additional feedback. I would like to continue the discussion
from Andrew's post:

I think it would be reasonable for the network server to require username/password encryption
on the wire. However, I'm not sure of the implications of this for existing apps and I would
appreciate more discussion by the community. I also think that it is a separate JIRA.

But let's suppose that we decide that a secure-by-default server boots up requiring username/password
encryption also. These appear to be the two models on the table:

1) In this scenario, "-unsecure" is a generic disabling flag with more or less the following
meaning: "Let my legacy apps run unmodified." That is, the "-unsecure" flag overrides the
booted server's impulse both to install a Java Security Manager and require wire encryption.

2) In this scenario, there are separate disabling startup flags, "-noSecurityManager" and
"noWireEncryption".

Which of these seems better?

> Run standalone network server with security manager by default
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2196
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Network Server, Security
>            Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
>         Assigned To: Rick Hillegas
>         Attachments: derby-2196-01-print-01.diff, derby-2196-01-print-02.diff, derby-2196-01-print-03.diff,
derby-2196-02-install-01.diff, derby-2196-03-tests-01.diff, secureServer.html, secureServer.html,
secureServer.html, secureServer.html, secureServer.html, secureServer.html
>
>
> From an e-mail discussion:
> ... Derby should match the security  provided by typical client server systems such as
DB2, Oracle, etc. I 
> think in this case system/database owners are trusting the database 
> system to ensure that their system cannot be attacked. So maybe if Derby 
> is booted as a standalone server with no security manager involved, it 
> should install one with a default security policy. Thus allowing Derby 
> to use Java security manager to manage system privileges but not 
> requiring everyone to become familiar with them.
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200612.mbox/%3c4582FE67.7040308@apache.org%3e
> I imagine such a policy would allow any access to databases under derby.system.home and/or
user.home.
> By standalone I mean the network server was started though the main() method (command
line).

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message