[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3282?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12553739
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-3282:
--------------------------------------
Thanks for continuing the conversation about this topic, Øystein. Yes indeed,
let's step further back!
I agree that the definition of a Derby system is not what you might want. In
practical terms it is something like this: the set of Derby resources managed
by a single VM relying on a single set of system properties and a single master
property file. It is not a set of Derby databases, which might be what you
want. Multiple Derby systems could run on a single machine and, in the worst
case, a given database could drift back and forth between two systems,
depending on which system touches it first after a reboot.
I understand the appeal of moving databases from one location to another, maybe
even between Derby systems. I think that this is particularly appealing for
single-user, shrink-wrapped applications. However, there are already
limitations on this useful feature. For instance, important aspects of a
database's behavior may be governed by the master property file and this does
not live in the database's directory. In addition, a database is sensitive to
the version of Derby which created it. You can't move a 10.3 database into a
Derby system which is running 10.2. In order to move databases safely, you may
also have to move some of the "system" context.
Unfortunately, some authentication is already part of this "system" context.
That is because you need system-wide credentials in order to create databases
and bring down the "system". It seems awkward to me that you technically need
one set of credentials in order to perform these system tasks and another set
of credentials in order to perform work in a database. In practice, I seriously
doubt that there are many (or even any) Derby applications which use different
credentials for system-wide vs. database-specific tasks. Good evidence for this
is provided I think by the fact that no production user has tripped across
DERBY-3271 yet.
In fact, the system-wide credentials which you use to create a database MUST BE
the very same database-specific credentials which you use to do work in the
database, at least initially. This is because database creation actually
involves two authentication passes. In the first pass, you authenticate at the
system level in order to create the system tables on disk. In the second pass,
you then authenticate (using the same credentials) at the database level in
order to get a connection to the newly created database. I don't believe that
this coupling of the two credential schemes is documented anywhere. It is an
unwritten assumption about the way that Derby authentication behaves.
I think it would be confusing and awkward to require customers to operate two
different mechanisms for administering users: one mechanism for administering
users at the system level and another mechanism for administering users at the
database level.
For the record, I don't have any quarrel with the syntax described in
DERBY-866. I do have reservations about the database-specific scope of the
syntax and about the requirement that system-wide credentials be stored in the
master property file.
> Add a mechanism for managing users in Derby
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3282
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3282
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Security
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>
> Currently, managing users in Derby is awkward. The BUILTIN mechanism seems
> appropriate for testing purposes, but has problems in a production setting.
> DERBY-866 describes part of a new mechanism for managing users. DERBY-866 may
> be part of the right solution--or it may not be. I think it would be
> worthwhile to step back from this issue and first describe at a high level
> what the customer experience should be. By introducing a new mechanism, we
> have the opportunity to think through the complete experience of user
> management. Here are my initial thoughts:
> 1) This mechanism is mutually exclusive with the currently supported settings
> of the derby.authentication.provider property.
> 2) There should be a super user who has the power to create, view, and drop
> users, including database owners. The design should let this super user
> delegate these powers to other users.
> 3) In the new mechanism it is sufficient that user credentials are
> system-wide.
> 4) Database owners should nevertheless have the power to state which
> usernames can connect to their databases. DBOs should also have the power to
> state who can shut down their databases. This mechanism should be extensible
> to managing other database-specific powers which fall outside the SQL spec.
> The design should let the DBO delegate these powers to other users.
> 5) Users should be able to change their own credentials whenever they want.
> 6) No password needed for this mechanism should be stored in plaintext
> anywhere on the system.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
