[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12470321
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-2196:
--------------------------------------
Dan> Should the permission then be broken into two, one for the accept on the
distinguished port, and then connect(?) on all ports or a range of port
numbers?
I tried breaking this into a permission to accept on the distinguished port and
then another permission to connect on all ports. Then I attempted to connect to
the server. This raised a security exception claiming that I needed accept
permission on the second connection. So I think that we could break this into
an accept on the distinguished port and then an accept on a range of port
numbers. However, right now I don't see any way to figure out what that range
would be. It looks like Derby is just relying on ServerSocket to make up a port
number. I think we would have to write some more code to restrict the range of
ports--probably this should be parameterized so that the customer can tell us
what range of ports to use. I think this would be a useful evolution of the
work begun in this JIRA but, in the interests of incremental development, I'd
like to defer that work.
> Run standalone network server with security manager by default
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2196
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Network Server, Security
> Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
> Assigned To: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: derby-2196-01-print-01.diff, secureServer.html,
> secureServer.html, secureServer.html, secureServer.html, secureServer.html
>
>
> From an e-mail discussion:
> ... Derby should match the security provided by typical client server
> systems such as DB2, Oracle, etc. I
> think in this case system/database owners are trusting the database
> system to ensure that their system cannot be attacked. So maybe if Derby
> is booted as a standalone server with no security manager involved, it
> should install one with a default security policy. Thus allowing Derby
> to use Java security manager to manage system privileges but not
> requiring everyone to become familiar with them.
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200612.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> I imagine such a policy would allow any access to databases under
> derby.system.home and/or user.home.
> By standalone I mean the network server was started though the main() method
> (command line).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
