[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12474822
]
Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-2196:
----------------------------------------
So, after looking into the security mechanisms a little deeper, it turns out
that the issue was in fact already discussed, and JIRA issues filed for the
problems blocking the use of encryption as the default. See DERBY-926,
DERBY-1517 and DERBY-1755 for the current issues with username/password
encryption, as well as the extensive discussions in DERBY-528 and DERBY-928.
Assuming the issues listed above can be fixed, I don't see a need for having a
separate noWireEncryption flag, but simply always using an encrypted connection
mechanism. Not sure what the expected client behavior would be for new client /
old server if the client can't negotiate an encrypted protocol. Failing down to
an unencrypted security mechanism would probably not be desirable from a
secure-out-of-the-box standpoint.
> 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.
