John Embretsen wrote:
[lots of good comments snipped]
We, as Derby developers, should strive to keep the sensitivity of the
information stored as (derby) system properties to a minimum. For
example, we
should recommend against defining usernames and passwords in cleartext
as system
properties (especially in scenarios where remote JMX is enabled), and
should
provide better alternatives to the users.
A better alternative already exists today. Derby system level properties
can be specified in derby.properties, none of these values are then set
as JVM system properties, and thus they will not appear to any standard
jmx bean.
Exposing these (or a security conscious subset of them) through Derby's
SystemMBean is fine, though I'm not sure that's what is being proposed
by the jmx changes. I.e. does SystemMbean just display the value of the
jvm system property or the value that derby is using (set as a jvm
system property or in derby.properties)?
Dan.
