[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12558703#action_12558703
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2109:
----------------------------------------------
With the class DatabasePrincipal, a user name of "*" corresponds to all users.
Is this use of * come from any existing practice? In SQL authorization the
identifier PUBLIC is used to represent all users. Would it make more sense to
use the SQL practice here?
Given that the representation of user identifiers can cause confusion (see
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/UserIdentifiers) it would be good if the
DatabasePrincipal javadoc and the functional spec indicated how it (with
examples) handles user name (in the code and the policy file). It looks like
user names would be entered in their normal form in the policy file unless
they include one of the special characters *, \ and @. What about if the user
name includes a double quote?
It's also worth noting that policy file and the DatabasePrincipal are using
back-slash as an escape, thus a normalized user name of eve* would have to
eve\\* in the policy file (I think). A single back-slash in the user name would
be four backslashes in the policy file.
In DatabasePrincipal at line 80 there is a comment that the "general rule" is
to have english only messages for "internal coding errors".
First - where does this general rule come from, I've never heard of it for
Derby.
Second - many of the english only messages are not internal coding errors,
but configuration errors in the policy file.
Also several of the messages in DatabsaePrinicpal refer to "action" when I
think they mean name.
> 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.
