[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12470750
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2196:
----------------------------------------------
I think the two properties in rev 6 {derby.derby.jar and derby.derbynet.jar}
are overkill.
I think a single property that is the location of the derby jar files is
sufficient and will be clearer to readers of the template policy.
If someone is repackaging Derby and is copying and modifying the template file
then they are unlikely to use ${derby.derby.jar} to refer to their own
application jar file that includes Derby.
I'm also believe that anyone that does package the Derby classes in their own
jars is not really a concern for the Derby project. Derby's security is in part
based upon its jar file layout, due to such concepts as jar signing. It seems
hard for the project to provide any guarantees when the code is packaged by
someone else.
I think the typical repackaging now is to include multiple jars and have the
application's jar file have a classpath manifest that refers to other jar
files, such as derby.jar.
> 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,
> derby-2196-01-print-02.diff, secureServer.html, 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.
