[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12463921
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2109:
----------------------------------------------
Rick wrote:
> Maybe we could require that the database location be unambiguously qualified
> by one of the subsubprotocols which we recognize on URLs:
>
> classpath:
> directory:
> jar:
>
> So, for instance, in this first rev:
>
> permission org.apache.derby.security.DatabasePermission
> "directory:${derby.system.home}${/}accountingDBA" "create";
That's possible though it would be good to see if the disambiguating rules that
are used for database name could also be used for database location, though as
a first step requiring "directory:" would be ok and forward compatible.
If the format of database location is to follow database name (with extensions)
then it's important to note that the separator for database names is always
forward slash since they are part of a URL syntax (JDBC URL). Though your
example has a variable with a file system name in it, (and others such as
user.dir and user.home would be useful) which can contain a different
separator, it does seem this is a useful feature. So the spec should account
for this.
We should also support relative names, as in database name, thus your example
could be re-written as:
permission org.apache.derby.security.DatabasePermission
"directory:accountingDBA/*" "create";
The extensions to the database format are the use of '/-', the functional spec
describes it but the description is inconsistent compared to existing use in
the policy file. I believe that the correct usage should be:
directory:name - defines that specific single database identified by name
directory:name/* - defines permission on any database in the folder
described by name
directory:name/- - defines permission on any database in the folder or
sub-folder of the folder described by name
I think this is more flexible, e.g. the future ability to grant shutdown
database to a single database, and matches FilePermission which you are
intending to use to imlement it.
So a quick summary would be I believe consistency with existing practices is
very important, I think it will reduce the number of errors in setting up
policy files by users, which are tricky things.
> System privileges
> -----------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2109
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Security
> Affects Versions: 10.3.0.0
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Fix For: 10.3.0.0
>
> Attachments: 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.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
