As an extrapolation of my last post,
The idea of extending the grant revoke syntax vs allowing for removing the
code from the system tables assumes a few things.
1.) It assumes enhanced user authorization options and control
2.) It makes the assumption that since blr can be reversed and encrypted
source could be decrypted with sufficient work, it is pointless to add a
feature that is by-passable.
3.) It opens up features not currently available - such as implementing
user defined, hidden system columns within their own tables to track things
that should never be seen by the end user.
The idea of giving developers the ability to hide part of their design, is
a good feature. It actually can make it easier for end users who do not
need to see all the underlying mechanics that makes their systems run.
Database authentication and encryption, both on disk or over the wire is
another can of worms that should be implemented separately from the need to
obfuscate a developers source code.
As far as I understand it, both enhanced authentication mechanisms and
encryption mechanisms are being worked on already, leaving a simple
extension to the security layer in regards to the VISIBLE option as an
appropriate manner of dealing with the problem without breaking any
existing applications.
best regards
Dalton
On 29 August 2014 09:51, Dalton Calford <dalton.calf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 29 August 2014 08:53, Dimitry Sibiryakov <s...@ibphoenix.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, they have to ask themselves if the sources are precious
>> enough to waste time
>> for their protection. AFAIK, database itself is usually pointless
>> without application that
>> works with it.
>>
>>
> Not always true.
>
> I have databases that contain no data - they are just a series of views,
> triggers and procedures designed to provide access to a different database.
> Such 'Surfacing' databases are used for ODBC/JDBC/OLAP clients who need
> to see tables/columns in their own language while allowing the use of
> modern data cube analysis tools.
>
> Such a database is designed for general access from any client.
>
> Some developers who do not have mandated language laws, design their
> database for access by such third party tools.
>
> This issue could be solved by extending the GRANT/REVOKE DDL syntax such
> as adding a VISIBLE [AS NULL] option to the privileges list - ie if you
> revoke visible from a column, it is as if that column does not exist. If
> you revoke visible with the as null option, the column exists for you, but,
> returns a null as a result.
>
> GRANT
> {*<privileges>* ON *<object>* | *role*}
> TO *<grantees>*
> [WITH {GRANT|ADMIN} OPTION]
> [{GRANTED BY | AS} [USER] *grantor*]
>
> <privilege_list> = SELECT
> | DELETE
> | INSERT
> | UPDATE
> | VISIBLE[AS NULL]
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
