Details
-
Bug
-
Status: Closed
-
Major
-
Resolution: Duplicate
-
10.3.1.4
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
Blocker
Description
The DBO restrictions implemented in Derby-2264 will, by default, break compatibility for some applications using connection based authentication. Put simply, removing the ability for any user to shutdown or upgrade a database will cause failures in systems that depend on that functionality. I am certain that many Derby installations depend on the near-zero-admin nature of the old authentication system. This feature introduces an administrative account that will require changes in some existing designs. I think this feature will have is greater negative impact on existing systems than anyone suspects and these restrictions should be made optional.
==== The email thread comments on derby-dev:
>>>> Email from Rick Hillegas and thread:
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Stanley Bradbury <Stan.Bradbury@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I feel strongly that the restrictions implemented by DERBY-2264 must
>>> be tied to sqlAuthorization (or a new property of it's own) being
>>> turned on. The restrictions need to be optional at upgrade otherwise
>>
>> I understand your concerns. I addressed the upgrade issue several
>> times in the discussion of this issue, but felt the community
>> preferred the semantics which are currently implemented, landing on
>> the side of a sensible secure-by-default behavior. Options:
>
> Was there any discussion outside of comments in DERBY-2264? I looked in the archives but couldn't see any between 2007/02/13 and 2007/02/20. I picked that date range because on 02/20 you said in DERBY-2264
>
> "Right, it seems both Dan and Rick are less concerned than me about the
> compatibility here issue, so I rest my case. "
>
> That was the first comment since 02/13, however, I don't see how my single comment in DERBY-2264 could lead you to that conclusion, I thought it's was just factual about authentication states. I'm sure there must have been a discussion elsewhere, but I can't find it at the moment.
>
> Dan.
>
>
>
I don't see any other discussion beyond what appears in DERBY-2264. I like Dag's original proposal that we should restrict DBO powers only if both authentication and authorization are enabled. I don't like the idea of adding another security knob for this.
Regards,
-Rick
>>>> Email from Stan Bradbury and thread (with spell checker changes undone):
Mike Matrigali wrote:
>
>
> Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Stanley Bradbury <Stan.Bradbury@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I feel strongly that the restrictions implemented by DERBY-2264 must
>>> be tied to sqlAuthorization (or a new property of it's own) being
>>> turned on. The restrictions need to be optional at upgrade otherwise
>>
>>
>> I understand your concerns. I addressed the upgrade issue several
>> times in the discussion of this issue, but felt the community
>> preferred the semantics which are currently implemented, landing on
>> the side of a sensible secure-by-default behavior. Options:
>>
>> - label this a major release (11.0), lowering the expectancy for a
>> painless upgrade with users.
>> - postpose the 10.3 release and change the semantics to something
>> else (tie enforcement to sqlAuthorization, introduce new
>> property to turn this checking off (default on) or vice versa)
>> - release it as it stands, but make a follow-up release with some
>> knob to allow users to disable it; making sure to call this out
>> in release notes. Note: since hard upgrade is among the operations
>> restricted, users would likely (although not necessarily) get
>> some hint of the issue early on 
>> - pull the feature from 10.3 (I'd love to avoid that
>> - others?
>>
>> We need to decide pretty quick; this is a bit late in the game.. What
>> say others?
>>
> I agree. Let's somehow mark this issue as a blocker for the 10.3 release. I am not saying a change is necessary for the release, only
> some consensus on the right approach. It is not clear to me that
> the issue was fully understood, or noticed by the community at that point.
>
> I am ok with delaying the release get discussion/consensus on this issue.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dag
>>
>>
>>> the feature will, by default, break compatibility for some
>>> applications using connection based authentication. Put simply,
>>> removing the ability for any user to shutdown or upgrade a database
>>> will cause failures in systems that depend on that functionality. I
>>> am certain that many Derby users like the near-zero-admin nature of
>>> the old authentication system. This feature introduces an
>>> administrative account. Dag originally suggested the feature be tied
>>> to sqlAuthorization (thank-you, Dag) when he noted that the patch
>>> caused some tests in derbyall to fail. Now that I have had time work
>>> with the feature and better evaluate the impact I see this as
>>> necessary for compatibility. This issue will be logged in JIRA before
>>> long but I chose to begin the discussion outside of JIRA to increase
>>> mailbox visibility. Any opinions - agreements/objections?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
I'll open a JIRA blocker issue on this later today (after all the meetings are over whew). I'll use the Title/Summary: Make DBO restrictions from Derby-2264 optional at upgrade. I do not believe that existing Derby Users are aware of this change and I think the impact of will have is greater than anyone suspects. For instance, it appears that if ';upgrade=true' is hardcoded in the connection URL that only the DO account will be able to access the database. I suspect there are other issues like this as well.
I will also add some additional information and suggest that as a sub-task (or super task - is that possible?) be added regarding deciding as a community how we will introduce changes like this. By 'like this' I mean changing previous behavior. More to the point is; defining a deprecation process that allows the Derby user-base to obtain a new release, assess the impact of 'changes' (the Release Notes will be the introduction of these issues for many users) and, by making the changes optional (activated by a property ?), allow applications that require significant rework to upgrade then begin work on what maybe several months to a year of coding and testing to become compliant with the behavior.
Attachments
Issue Links
- is related to
-
DERBY-2264 Restrict shutdown, upgrade, and encryption powers to the database owner
-
- Closed
-