db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Q: Should Derby 10.3 be Derby 11?
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:56:42 GMT
Thanks for raising this issue, Bernt. Here's my $.02:

Making Derby secure-by-default is a high priority for many people on 
this list. Since we're moving from wide-open, unsecure default behavior, 
we have a lot of work to do. I expect we'll be making significant 
security improvements for at least the next two feature releases. Once 
we start advertising Derby as a secure database, I think we're committed 
to closing security holes as they come up. I agree that we're changing 
the network server disruptively. If this kind of change makes us bump to 
a major release number, then I think we face the possibility that our 
next several feature releases will all be major revisions.

There is an unhappy tension between frictionless-upgrade and 
security-by-default. I don't think the proposed compatibility rules 
address that tension: 

For instance, the third bullet under "JVM Support and Version 
Interoperability" makes cross-rev network connections negotiate down to 
the lower rev of the protocol even if the lower rev is less secure. That 
seems wrong to me. Before voting on these guidelines, I think they 
should be revised so that security-by-default trumps frictionless-upgrade.


Bernt M. Johnsen wrote:
> Hi,
> I raise this question because it has now been introduced functionality
> that will make Derby 10.3 not entirely compatible with 10.2.
> It might seem innocent, but I think it deserves some discussion.
> With the "secure by default" functionality, Rick H. has committed a
> patch which requires me in my environment to start using the new
> -unsecure option when a started a network server.
> Consider the follwing quotes from two ongoing issues which describes
> incompatible behaviour:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196 :
>> New Default Behavior - By default, the network server now comes up
>> with a Basic security policy. The customer may want to edit this
>> policy, using the demo/templates/server.policy template. Among other
>> side-effects, this may affect the running of customer-written
>> procedures and functions as well as other parts of the application
>> which run in the same VM with the engine. The customer may need to
>> instrument her code to run under a SecurityManager or she may need
>> to consider running with the security-disabling -unsecure option.
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2264 :
>> DBA Limits - The application may need to be changed to account for
>> the fact that only the Database Owner can shutdown, encrypt, and
>> upgrade a database.
> So, the question is then: Is this a Derby 10 release, or should it
> really be Derby 11?
> Myself, I have no strong feelings, but wanted to raise the discussion.

View raw message