[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=comments#action_12457499 ]
David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-2109:
--------------------------------------------
Hi, Rick, nicely done! Here are my comments:
- I like the use of Java security for system privileges
- I think the system-wide permissions defined in the DerbyPermissions class can
be a little more descriptive, so that they are clear without having to refer to
documentation:
o "create-plugin" rather than just "plugin"
o "shutdown-engine" rather than just "shutdown" (could be confused with
permission to shut down a db)
o "create-database" rather than just "create" (create what?)
"We don't see why anyone other than the database owner would need to shutdown,
upgrade or encrypt that database." Hm, why not? Why wouldn't I want to grant
that privilege to others besides myself? I always get nervous when someone
says "I can't see why anyone would ever want to do this." I would rather we
explicitly say we're not doing this for *now*, but not make hardcoded
assumptions that can leak their way into our code...
Similarly, "It's hard to imagine why you would want to grant more than one
person the power to shut down the engine." Hm, there's that phrase again :).
I would prefer to think of "system administrator" as a *role* rather than a
*person*. And it seems reasonable to me that you may want to grant more than
one person system administrator rights. At a minimum our architecture
shouldn't assume only one system administrator per database engine.
"there is no way to change ownership of a database" - is this a hardcoded fact
of the Derby architecture, or is it something that's just not supported right
now but could be enabled in the future? Also, please clarify you mean an
operating system account when you say "it may be prudent to create a special
account for this.'
What does '???' mean for "Documentation." It would be good for you to describe
what documentation changes/additions will be needed for this feature.
Thanks,
David
> System privileges
> -----------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2109
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Security
> Affects Versions: 10.3.0.0
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Fix For: 10.3.0.0
>
> Attachments: 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.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
