[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3462?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12578746#action_12578746
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-3462:
----------------------------------------------
> Does this mean that these permissions serve no purpose if JMX authentication
> is enabled?
The basic policy file is just that, a basic policy. If the JMX authentication
is being used then the application needs to use a specific policy file that
grants permissions to specific users as required, it's simply out of scope for
the basic policy.
> If both permissions ("control" and "monitor") are included for the network
> server in the default policy file, why don't we leave distinguishing between
> sensitive actions and non-sensitive actions to the admin? Admins may have
> different views of which actions are security sensitive and which are not...
I don't understand what you are proposing here. The code has to be the place
that indicates what permissions are required, that can't be set by an
application. An application can only decide what permissions are granted.
> Require new permissions in o.a.d.security.SystemPermission to allow control
> to Derby's JMX management and to ensure information is not leaked through JMX
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3462
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3462
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: JMX, Security
> Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
> Priority: Minor
>
> Plan is to implement proposal defined in:
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/JMXSecurityExpectations#head-de15a7e9d474784775933965fe963b6ac46e7ad0
> E.g.
> jmxControl for the ability to call the operations on ManagementMBean.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
