[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12558586#action_12558586
]
John H. Embretsen commented on DERBY-2109:
------------------------------------------
This is confusing. Are you (Rick/Martin) mixing authentication with
authorization in the most recent comments to this issue? If not, please help me
understand what kind of Authorization we are talking about here:
--- --- ---
> The non-backward-compatible cases arise for customers who do BOTH of the
> following:
>
> A) Run with Authorization turned on
>
> B) Run with a Java Security Manager
--- --- ---
>> Just to clarify, the additional case (3) is true today isn't it? Today if
>> Authorization is turned on, then you must pass valid credentials in order to
>> shutdown the engine via an URL? So (3) would not be an additional
>> backward-compatibility case, just a continuation of current behavior?
>
> "Yes" to all three questions -- I overlooked that 3) is not newly introduced
> but already there.
--- --- ---
I think that the case mentioned above is true if authentication is turned on,
regardless of any settings for authorization.
Regarding the SystemPrivilegesBehaviour.html document: I find it very useful in
understanding the implications of these changes, especially the table with all
the combinations of configurations. I find the second bullet under the
"Changes" heading a bit unclear, though:
--- ---
(...users must)
* have autherization by the used Java Policy for engine shutdown and/or create
database.
--- ---
I think I know what is meant, but please correct me if I'm wrong:
(users must) be authorized by the used Java Security Policy to perform engine
shutdown and/or create a database.
> System privileges
> -----------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2109
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Security
> Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Assignee: Martin Zaun
> Attachments: DERBY-2109-02.diff, DERBY-2109-02.stat,
> derby-2109-03-javadoc-see-tags.diff, DERBY-2109-04.diff, DERBY-2109-04.stat,
> DERBY-2109-05and06.diff, DERBY-2109-05and06.stat, DERBY-2109-07.diff,
> DERBY-2109-07.stat, DERBY-2109-08.diff, DERBY-2109-08.stat,
> DERBY-2109-08_addendum.diff, DERBY-2109-08_addendum.stat,
> SystemPrivilegesBehaviour.html, systemPrivs.html, systemPrivs.html,
> systemPrivs.html, 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.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
