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-2109) System privileges
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:32:36 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12561118#action_12561118
] 

Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-2109:
--------------------------------------

>So I think we can agree that a user has a unique identity, can we call this UID? This
corresponds to what is stored in the system tables. 

I'm afraid that when I read these words, they sound like this to me: "A person has a unigue
identity, a UID, which is stored in the system tables." I don't agree with this. Two persons
(Edward and EdWard in my example) end up with the same identity. The identity is not unique.
That's a problem.

As a practical matter, I don't think that we can please everyone:

1) A customer whose authentication service enforces the case sensitivity of usernames is probably
going to want to grant privileges to case-sensitive names. This customer is not going to be
happy if the payroll clerk EdWard gets the shutdown privilege intended for the system administrator
Edward.

2) On the other hand, a customer whose authentication service treats Edward and EdWard as
the same username is not going to want to have to grant shutdown privilege to every casing
combination.

Maybe we could add a userNamesAreCaseSensitive() method to UserAuthenticator or create a CaseSensitiveUserAuthenticator
interface to extend UserAuthenticator? Given a case-sensitive UserAuthenticator, we would
not have to throw Edward and EdWard into the same schema. The default behavior would be the
current behavior. And the default behavior for SystemPrincipal would be, as Dan suggests,
that usernames are case-insensitive.

This distinction could be added later on. I don't see that we have to support case-sensitive
usernames in 10.4.

> System privileges
> -----------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2109
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Security
>    Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
>            Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>            Assignee: Martin Zaun
>         Attachments: DERBY-2109-02.diff, DERBY-2109-02.stat, derby-2109-03-javadoc-see-tags.diff,
DERBY-2109-04.diff, DERBY-2109-04.stat, DERBY-2109-05and06.diff, DERBY-2109-05and06.stat,
DERBY-2109-07.diff, DERBY-2109-07.stat, DERBY-2109-08.diff, DERBY-2109-08.stat, DERBY-2109-08_addendum.diff,
DERBY-2109-08_addendum.stat, SystemPrivilegesBehaviour.html, systemPrivs.html, systemPrivs.html,
systemPrivs.html, systemPrivs.html
>
>
> Add mechanisms for controlling system-level privileges in Derby. See the related email
discussion at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/33151.
> The 10.2 GRANT/REVOKE work was a big step forward in making Derby more  secure in a client/server
configuration. I'd like to plug more client/server security holes in 10.3. In particular,
I'd like to focus on  authorization issues which the ANSI spec doesn't address.
> Here are the important issues which came out of the email discussion.
> Missing privileges that are above the level of a single database:
> - Create Database
> - Shutdown all databases
> - Shutdown System
> Missing privileges specific to a particular database:
> - Shutdown that Database
> - Encrypt that database
> - Upgrade database
> - Create (in that Database) Java Plugins (currently  Functions/Procedures, but someday
Aggregates and VTIs)
> Note that 10.2 gave us GRANT/REVOKE control over the following  database-specific issues,
via granting execute privilege to system  procedures:
> Jar Handling
> Backup Routines
> Admin Routines
> Import/Export
> Property Handling
> Check Table
> In addition, since 10.0, the privilege of connecting to a database has been controlled
by two properties (derby.database.fullAccessUsers and derby.database.defaultConnectionMode)
as described in the security section of the Developer's Guide (see http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.2/devguide/cdevcsecure865818.html).

-- 
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