Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <32207827.1181335765876.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Stan Bradbury (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Closed: (DERBY-2728) Make DBO restrictions from Derby-2264
 optional for upgrades
In-Reply-To: <4983616.1180487595572.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-2728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Stan Bradbury closed DERBY-2728.
--------------------------------

    Resolution: Fixed

The patch DAG supplied as part of the original DBO restrictions implementation has resolved this issue (assuming it will be committed soon).

> Make DBO restrictions from Derby-2264 optional for upgrades
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2728
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2728
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 10.3.0.0
>            Reporter: Stan Bradbury
>
> The DBO restrictions implemented in Derby-2264 will, by default, break compatibility for some applications using connection based authentication.  Put simply, removing the ability for any user to shutdown or upgrade a database will cause failures in systems that depend on that functionality.  I am certain that many Derby installations depend on the near-zero-admin nature of the old authentication system.  This feature introduces an administrative account that will require changes in some existing designs.  I think this feature will have is greater negative impact on existing systems than anyone suspects and these restrictions should be made optional.   
> ==== The email thread comments on derby-dev:
>   >>>>     Email from Rick Hillegas and thread:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> > Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Stanley Bradbury <Stan.Bradbury@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I feel strongly that the restrictions implemented by DERBY-2264 must
> >>> be tied to sqlAuthorization (or a new property of it's own) being
> >>> turned on.  The restrictions need to be optional at upgrade otherwise
> >>
> >> I understand your concerns. I addressed the upgrade issue several
> >> times in the discussion of this issue, but felt the community
> >> preferred the semantics which are currently implemented, landing on
> >> the side of a sensible secure-by-default behavior. Options:
> >
> > Was there any discussion outside of comments in DERBY-2264? I looked in the archives but couldn't see any between 2007/02/13 and 2007/02/20. I picked that date range because on 02/20 you said in DERBY-2264
> >
> >  "Right, it seems both Dan and Rick are less concerned than me about the
> > compatibility here issue, so I rest my case. "
> >
> > That was the first comment since 02/13, however, I don't see how my single comment in DERBY-2264 could lead you to that conclusion, I thought it's was just factual about authentication states. I'm sure there must have been a discussion elsewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.
> >
> > Dan.
> >
> >
> >
> I don't see any other discussion beyond what appears in DERBY-2264. I like Dag's original proposal that we should restrict DBO powers only if both authentication and authorization are enabled. I don't like the idea of adding another security knob for this.
> Regards,
> -Rick
>   >>>>     Email from Stan Bradbury  and thread (with spell checker changes undone):
> Mike Matrigali wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Stanley Bradbury <Stan.Bradbury@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I feel strongly that the restrictions implemented by DERBY-2264 must
> >>> be tied to sqlAuthorization (or a new property of it's own) being
> >>> turned on.  The restrictions need to be optional at upgrade otherwise
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand your concerns. I addressed the upgrade issue several
> >> times in the discussion of this issue, but felt the community
> >> preferred the semantics which are currently implemented, landing on
> >> the side of a sensible secure-by-default behavior. Options:
> >>
> >>     - label this a major release (11.0), lowering the expectancy for a
> >>       painless upgrade with users.
> >>     - postpose the 10.3 release and change the semantics to something
> >>       else (tie enforcement to sqlAuthorization, introduce new
> >>       property to turn this checking off (default on) or vice versa)
> >>     - release it as it stands, but make a follow-up release with some
> >>       knob to allow users to disable it; making sure to call this out
> >>       in release notes. Note: since hard upgrade is among the operations
> >>       restricted, users would likely (although not necessarily) get
> >>       some hint of the issue early on ;)
> >>     - pull the feature from 10.3 (I'd love to avoid that ;)
> >>     - others?
> >>
> >> We need to decide pretty quick; this is a bit late in the game.. What
> >> say others?
> >>
> > I agree.  Let's somehow mark this issue as a blocker for the 10.3 release.  I am not saying a change is necessary for the release, only
> > some consensus on the right approach.  It is not clear to me that
> > the issue was fully understood, or noticed by the community at that point.
> >
> > I am ok with delaying the release get discussion/consensus on this issue.
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Dag
> >>
> >>
> >>> the feature will, by default, break compatibility for some
> >>> applications using connection based authentication.  Put simply,
> >>> removing the ability for any user to shutdown or upgrade a database
> >>> will cause failures in systems that depend on that functionality.  I
> >>> am certain that many Derby users like the near-zero-admin nature of
> >>> the old authentication system.  This feature introduces an
> >>> administrative account.  Dag originally suggested the feature be tied
> >>> to sqlAuthorization (thank-you, Dag) when he noted that the patch
> >>> caused some tests in derbyall to fail.  Now that I have had time work
> >>> with the feature and better evaluate the impact I see this as
> >>> necessary for compatibility.  This issue will be logged in JIRA before
> >>> long but I chose to begin the discussion outside of JIRA to increase
> >>> mailbox visibility.  Any opinions - agreements/objections?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> I'll open a JIRA blocker issue on this later today (after all the meetings are over *whew*).  I'll use the Title/Summary:  Make DBO restrictions from Derby-2264 optional at upgrade.  I do not believe that existing Derby Users are aware of this change and I think the impact of will have is greater than anyone suspects.  For instance, it appears that if ';upgrade=true' is hardcoded in the connection URL that only the DO account will be able to access the database.  I suspect there are other issues like this as well.
> I will also add some additional information and suggest that as a sub-task (or super task - is that possible?) be added regarding deciding as a community how we will introduce changes like this.  By 'like this' I mean changing previous behavior.  More to the point is; defining a deprecation process that allows the Derby user-base to obtain a new release, assess the impact of 'changes' (the Release Notes will be the introduction of these issues for many users) and, by making the changes optional (activated by a property ?), allow applications that require significant rework to upgrade  then begin  work on  what maybe several months to a year of coding and testing to become compliant with the behavior.

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