[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12470500
]
John H. Embretsen commented on DERBY-2196:
------------------------------------------
Some comments to 'derby-2196-01-print-01.diff':
I found the following issues trying out the patch and the generated policy:
* Connections are not allowed unless both derby.drda.host and derby.system.home
have been set explicitly:
- without -Dderby.drda.host=<host>:
java.security.AccessControlException: access denied
(java.net.SocketPermission 127.0.0.1:44561 accept,resolve)
- without -Dderby.system.home=<userDir>:
java.security.AccessControlExceptionaccess denied
(java.util.PropertyPermission user.dir read)XJ001.U
(error received by client)
* the "policy" command does not work when running it using jar files ("java
-jar derbyrun.jar server policy" or "java -jar derbynet.jar policy")
Regarding allowing a range of port number instead of all ports, I think we can
safely assume that the ServerSocket/Socket implementations will never
dynamically assign incoming connections to the "well known" or "reserved" ports
(port numbers 1024 and lower). I have not been able to confirm this for sure,
though.
> 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.
