Thanks Stan. Just to clarify: your impression was that this group was in
favor of Derby's automatic installation of a security manager?
Thanks,
-Rick
Stanley Bradbury wrote:
I obtained a positive reaction from a group with a large install base
that will be transitioning to version 10.3. Derby and Network Server
are used with sample code and readily available for use as a business
system data store. The statement I received is:
"I am all for it. Anything that will mean not breaking customers out
of the box is a good thing."
Rick Hillegas wrote:
As of release 10.3, when you boot the network server from the command
line, the server installs a Java SecurityManager with a default
policy. This change (DERBY-2196) limits the ability of hackers,
connecting from arbitrary machines, to use Derby to corrupt the
environment in which it is running. In addition, this change provides
a foundation on which we can add more security features
incrementally. As a result of this change, we have learned more about
how Derby behaves when run under a SecurityManager--that in turn, has
helped us discover more permissions which we need to add to the
template used as a starting point for configuring a Derby security
policy.
Unfortunately, this change has proved painful to some users. See, for
instance, DERBY-3086 and the ongoing discussion on DERBY-3083.
Now that we have some experience with the 10.3 release, I would like
to ask the community to review the wisdom of this change. Do we still
think that this is the correct default behavior? Or should we
consider turning off this feature in the upcoming 10.3 maintenance
release?
Thanks,
-Rick
