[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12474818
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-2196:
--------------------------------------
Thanks, Andrew and Bernt, for the additional feedback. I would like to continue
the discussion from Andrew's post:
I think it would be reasonable for the network server to require
username/password encryption on the wire. However, I'm not sure of the
implications of this for existing apps and I would appreciate more discussion
by the community. I also think that it is a separate JIRA.
But let's suppose that we decide that a secure-by-default server boots up
requiring username/password encryption also. These appear to be the two models
on the table:
1) In this scenario, "-unsecure" is a generic disabling flag with more or less
the following meaning: "Let my legacy apps run unmodified." That is, the
"-unsecure" flag overrides the booted server's impulse both to install a Java
Security Manager and require wire encryption.
2) In this scenario, there are separate disabling startup flags,
"-noSecurityManager" and "noWireEncryption".
Which of these seems better?
> 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, derby-2196-01-print-03.diff,
> derby-2196-02-install-01.diff, derby-2196-03-tests-01.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.
