[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573159#action_12573159
]
Martin Zaun commented on DERBY-2109:
------------------------------------
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> 1) Since J2ME/CDC/Foundation does not support some of the security classes
> used, how is this being handled? Seems like it isn't at the moment. I think a
> new abstract method is needed in InternalDriver called shutdownCheck() is
> needed that would do nothing in J2ME but call the checks (through
> SecurityUtil in J2SE.
The System Privileges checks are invoked from three places:
NetworkServerControlImpl, InternalDriver, and EmbedConnection (and there may be
more in future). They all call into SecurityUtil. Instead of introducing
abstract methods in three different places, we may want to think about using
SecurityUtil as a central switch for checking/not checking SystemPrivileges.
Right now SecurityUtil is is a static utility class, which doesn't support
delegation. I see the following options:
a) Make SecurityUtil an interface and (perhaps rename it) and have a public
singleton class providing an instance appropriate to the environment (i.e.,
dummy implementation for J2ME).
b) Keep SecurityUtil as class but make its method non-static, abstract and
introduce a static method getSecurityChecker() (or so) returning a singleton
instance implementing these methods according to the environment.
c) Keep SecurityUtil as utility class but have the static methods internally
delegate to an instance appropriate to the environment.
I like c) best since it keeps the callers unchanged. Any thoughts/comments
welcome.
If you have a pointer to a derby code example for me where switch
implementation classes to accommodate J2ME, that would be helpful to me too.
Thanks,
Martin
> 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, DERBY-2109-09.diff,
> DERBY-2109-09.stat, DERBY-2109-10.diff, DERBY-2109-10.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.
