db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Ondruška <peter.ondruska+de...@kaibo.eu>
Subject Re: Derby secure by default
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:45:45 GMT
Rick, I’d vote for secure by default in v.11. Thanks

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Rick Hillegas <rick.hillegas@oracle.com> wrote:
> The Derby developers are considering introducing a single master security
> property. Turning this property on will enable most Derby security
> mechanisms:
> 1) Authentication - Will be on, requiring username/password credentials at
> connection time. Derby will supply a default authentication mechanism.
> 2) SQL authorization - Will be on, hiding a user's data from other people.
> In addition, Derby will support more SQL Standard protections for Java
> routines.
> 3) File permissions - Will be tightened as described by DERBY-5363.
> 4) PUBLIC -This keyword will not be allowed as a user name.
> 5) SSL/TLS encryption - Will shield client/server traffic.
> 6) Server administration -  Will require credentials.
> When the property is off, Derby will behave as it does today:
> Authentication, authorization, and network encryption will be off, file
> permissions will inherit defaults from the account which runs the VM, PUBLIC
> will be a legal user name, and server administration won't need credentials.
> This new master property will make it easier to configure a more secure
> application. We want to introduce the property in an upcoming 10.x release,
> where it will default to being off. That means that it won't cause
> compatibility problems.
> Later on, we might change the default for this property so that it would
> normally be turned on. This would make Derby more secure out of the box at
> the cost of breaking existing applications. Many applications would need to
> explicitly turn the property off in order to run as they did previously.
> Release notes would document this behavioral change and we would bump the
> major release id from 10 to 11 in order to call attention to the change.
> We would like your feedback on this trade-off between security out of the
> box versus disruption. Should this extra security be enabled by default?
> Thanks,
> -Rick

View raw message