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 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:22:07 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12470321

Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-2196:

Dan> Should the permission then be broken into two, one for the accept on the distinguished
port, and then connect(?) on all ports or a range of port numbers? 

I tried breaking this into a permission to accept on the distinguished port and then another
permission to connect on all ports. Then I attempted to connect to the server. This raised
a security exception claiming that I needed accept permission on the second connection. So
I think that we could break this into an accept on the distinguished port and then an accept
on a range of port numbers. However, right now I don't see any way to figure out what that
range would be. It looks like Derby is just relying on ServerSocket to make up a port number.
I think we would have to write some more code to restrict the range of ports--probably this
should be parameterized so that the customer can tell us what range of ports to use. I think
this would be a useful evolution of the work begun in this JIRA but, in the interests of incremental
development, I'd like to defer that work.

> 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, 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
> By standalone I mean the network server was started though the main() method (command

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

View raw message