[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6222?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13393390#comment-13393390
]
Jonathan Hsieh commented on HBASE-6222:
---------------------------------------
Do we think of the goal of faithfully mimicking accumulo's is reasonable? (my
first impression is yes). If so, I think we'd need to define those semantics
and to do that we'd need bring up an accumulo cluster (or spend more time in
the code) to see what its semantics are.
Here's the accumulo api. (ColumnVisibility is tag expression)
http://accumulo.apache.org/1.4/apidocs/org/apache/accumulo/core/data/Mutation.html
You can see that delete mutations in accumulo also have visibility expressions
-- and I'm not actually sure what the semantics are. Let's say you have a
"public" put on row A, and then a "sensitive" delete of the entire row A. Does
someone with the only the "public" authorizations see the old row A, or no row
A? If it was no row A, would they be able to do a versioned query and get the
old row A (and could then infer out that there was a sensitive delete?)...
Also, I didn't see atomic increment operator in accumulo. If it doesn't exist
we'd have to define that behavior. Some options:
1) No visibility settings on hbase increment mutation operations, thus only
keep only one value always readable by all
2) Add some mechanism to set counter visibility so we could to require
authorization to read.
3) Keep one counter for each visibility tag on a particular cell... (yuck).
> Add per-KeyValue Security, get federal funding for HBase?
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-6222
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6222
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: security
> Reporter: stack
>
> Saw an interesting article:
> http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/sasc-accumulo-language-pro-open-source-say-proponents/2012-06-14
> "The Senate Armed Services Committee version of the fiscal 2013 national
> defense authorization act (S. 3254) would require DoD agencies to foreswear
> the Accumulo NoSQL database after Sept. 30, 2013, unless the DoD CIO
> certifies that there exists either no viable commercial open source database
> with security features comparable to [Accumulo] (such as the HBase or
> Cassandra databases)..."
> Not sure what a 'commercial open source database' is, and I'm not sure whats
> going on in the article, but tra-la-la'ing, if we had per-KeyValue 'security'
> like Accumulo's, we might put ourselves in the running for federal
> contributions?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
