[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12566683#action_12566683 ]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2109: ---------------------------------------------- Some comments on the patch, thanks for working on it and addressing the issues: - SecurityUtil should be moved out of the o.a.d.security package since it is not part of the external api, how about o.a.d.iapi.security? - Since the format of the directory path in the create database permission matches FilePermission's format, why not use FilePermission to evaluate it rather than repeating the logic? >2) Customers running just with Java Security but no Authentication: No >compatibility issues. > The issue Dan pointed out should have been addressed by the latest patch. I pointed out that it didn't match the spec, but I believe that the previous behaviour was correct. I don't think any other java security check is not enforced if there is a security manager, and I think it's required in order to support being able to grant the shutdown permission to code and Principals that are not SystemPrinicpals as described in the spec. > System privileges > ----------------- > > Key: DERBY-2109 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: Security > Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4 > Reporter: Rick Hillegas > Assignee: Martin Zaun > Attachments: DERBY-2109-02.diff, DERBY-2109-02.stat, > derby-2109-03-javadoc-see-tags.diff, DERBY-2109-04.diff, DERBY-2109-04.stat, > DERBY-2109-05and06.diff, DERBY-2109-05and06.stat, DERBY-2109-07.diff, > DERBY-2109-07.stat, DERBY-2109-08.diff, DERBY-2109-08.stat, > DERBY-2109-08_addendum.diff, DERBY-2109-08_addendum.stat, DERBY-2109-09.diff, > DERBY-2109-09.stat, SystemPrivilegesBehaviour.html, systemPrivs.html, > systemPrivs.html, systemPrivs.html, systemPrivs.html > > > Add mechanisms for controlling system-level privileges in Derby. See the > related email discussion at > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/33151. > The 10.2 GRANT/REVOKE work was a big step forward in making Derby more > secure in a client/server configuration. I'd like to plug more client/server > security holes in 10.3. In particular, I'd like to focus on authorization > issues which the ANSI spec doesn't address. > Here are the important issues which came out of the email discussion. > Missing privileges that are above the level of a single database: > - Create Database > - Shutdown all databases > - Shutdown System > Missing privileges specific to a particular database: > - Shutdown that Database > - Encrypt that database > - Upgrade database > - Create (in that Database) Java Plugins (currently Functions/Procedures, > but someday Aggregates and VTIs) > Note that 10.2 gave us GRANT/REVOKE control over the following > database-specific issues, via granting execute privilege to system > procedures: > Jar Handling > Backup Routines > Admin Routines > Import/Export > Property Handling > Check Table > In addition, since 10.0, the privilege of connecting to a database has been > controlled by two properties (derby.database.fullAccessUsers and > derby.database.defaultConnectionMode) as described in the security section of > the Developer's Guide (see > http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.2/devguide/cdevcsecure865818.html). -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.