Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <10843548.1171983306384.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:55:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Rick Hillegas (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2196) Run standalone network server with
 security manager by default
In-Reply-To: <4216116.1166553920991.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12474459 ] 

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

HI Bernt. Thanks for the feedback on the name of the override flag. I agree that "secure-by-default" means, at best, "has no security holes that we understand". One thing that I like about "unsecure" as a flag name is this: it allows the flag to control other security mechanisms besides the installation of a Java security manager. I'm not a big fan of introducing a lot of flags to control individual security features. I think that the discussion on DERBY-2264 gives some sense of how complicated our security settings are already. I'd like to contain the complexity if we can.

> 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.