Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Robert DiPietro <Robert.DiPietro@accelrys.com>
To: Derby Discussion <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:40:56 -0800
Subject: Authentication and passwords in derby.properties
Thread-Topic: Authentication and passwords in derby.properties
Thread-Index: AczSIuMLdDwN4TGIRS2DG/ultljNNw==
Message-ID: 
 <99FC70E9B6AD72468CD241D1D64D5F0C04497C3A8A@EXCH1-COLO.accelrys.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hello!

I have been deving against a Derby DB on which requireAuthentication is tru=
e, the provider is built-in, and all users have been defined in the derby.p=
roperties file (so they are all system level users). This has been extremel=
y convenient in development, however there are obvious concerns about havin=
g the password stored in plaintext in a file.

Is it possible to require authentication in built-in mode, but have no syst=
em level users defined in derby.properties, rather only defined at database=
 level (stored internally on the database)?

For example, I have tried disabling requireAuthentication, logging in to th=
e system, creating a db, and then creating a user against it using these co=
mmands:

CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_DATABASE_PROPERTY('Derby.database.propertiesOnly'=
,'true');
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_DATABASE_PROPERTY('Derby.connection.requireAuthen=
tication', 'true');
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_DATABASE_PROPERTY('Derby.authentication.provider'=
, 'BUILTIN');
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_DATABASE_PROPERTY('Derby.user.username', 'passwor=
d');

Which seems to work, but then if I enable requireAuthentication in derby.pr=
operties, I can no longer log in. I guess this makes sense since the system=
 level property (and lack of user) overrides the database level property.

So back to my question, is it possible to access an instance in Derby using=
 only database users without having a system level user in derby.properties=
 in a way that prohibits people from connecting at a system level and doing=
 whatever they like?

I'm working with Derby 10.8.x. Reading through the various documentation ha=
s left me a bit confused and I figured I would reach out to the experts. Th=
ank you for any and all help.

Regards,

Rob DiPietro