[GitHub] [mina-sshd] ramasubbaiya opened a new issue, #406: Enabling user level permissions
ramasubbaiya opened a new issue, #406: URL: https://github.com/apache/mina-sshd/issues/406 ### Description We have an Apache MINA SFTP server that uses a user table to authenticate users. We would like to setup permissions such as LIST, DOWNLOAD, UPLOAD, and others, where users are only allowed to perform certain actions based on their permissions. We would appreciate any ideas or recommendations on how to enable this. ### Motivation Implementing user-level permissions to restrict users based on their usernames/account. ### Alternatives considered _No response_ ### Additional context _No response_ -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[GitHub] [mina-sshd] tomaswolf commented on issue #403: exceptionCaught(ServerSessionImpl[user@/10.x.x.x:23232])[state=Opened] IllegalStateException: Bad length (32796) for cmd=SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_DATA -
tomaswolf commented on issue #403: URL: https://github.com/apache/mina-sshd/issues/403#issuecomment-1692304267 @dragonknight88 : PR #405 has been merged. Using the 2.10.1-SNAPSHOT release from the [Apache Snapshot maven repository](https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots) you could test whether it really works with WS_FTP with different handle sizes. If not, feel free to re-open this. Ultimately it would be good if the vendor of WS_FTP fixed that bug in their SFTP client. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[GitHub] [mina-sshd] tomaswolf closed issue #403: exceptionCaught(ServerSessionImpl[user@/10.x.x.x:23232])[state=Opened] IllegalStateException: Bad length (32796) for cmd=SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_DATA - max.
tomaswolf closed issue #403: exceptionCaught(ServerSessionImpl[user@/10.x.x.x:23232])[state=Opened] IllegalStateException: Bad length (32796) for cmd=SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_DATA - max. allowed=32768 URL: https://github.com/apache/mina-sshd/issues/403 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[GitHub] [mina-sshd] tomaswolf merged pull request #405: Fix SFTP file handles
tomaswolf merged PR #405: URL: https://github.com/apache/mina-sshd/pull/405 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DIRMINA-1172) Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17758563#comment-17758563
]
Alexander B commented on DIRMINA-1172:
--
Actually, the two Cmd's are running in parallel.
But, anyway, I think, if it works now - would it be possible to fix this
officially in 2.1.x and/or 2.2.x ?
Thanks a lot
> Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
> ---
>
> Key: DIRMINA-1172
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172
> Project: MINA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
>Affects Versions: 2.1.5
>Reporter: Alexander B
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: DIRMINA1172.java, UDPTest4.java,
> apache-mina-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz, mina-core-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
>
>
> Hello,
> I am using two independently created NioDatagramAcceptors, which are created
> by the following code :
> {code:java}
> AbstractIoService inputSource = new NioDatagramAcceptor();
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).getSessionConfig().setReuseAddress(true);
> DefaultIoFilterChainBuilder filterChainBuilderUDP =
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).getFilterChain();
> filterChainBuilderUDP.addLast("logger", new LoggingFilter());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)
> inputSource).getSessionConfig().setIdleTime(IdleStatus.READER_IDLE,
> getIdleTimeout());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).setHandler(this);
> try {
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).bind(new InetSocketAddress(port));
> } catch (IOException e) {
> log.error("Failed to connect {}", e);
> }
> {code}
> One Acceptor is listening on port 9800, the other one on 9801. If I now send
> UDP packages (from a external application) to both ports (independently). It
> seems, that both UDP port are "connected" to the same session.
> Information: The external app is sending:
> Message "TEST_1 " just to port 9800
> Message "TEST_2 " just to port 9801
> The overwritten method messageReceived will give the following output:
> {code:java}
> public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object message) throws
> Exception {
> String msgStr = message.toString();
> log.info("SessionId:" + session.getId() + " " + msgStr);
> }
> {code}
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-2] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904855701
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-3] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_2
> 1681904855701
> So, both messages (for port 9800 and port 9801) are received by SessionId1.
> If I do exactly the same with `NioSocketConnector`, I can see two different
> sessions, such that both messages are handled independently:
> 2023-04-19_11:44:35.725 [NioProcessor-11] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904875701
> 2023-04-19_11:44:37.754 [NioProcessor-15] INFO - SessionId:2 TEST_2
> 1681904875701
> Is there anything I did not mention in the context of UDP/DatagramAcceptor?
> Or is there any setting, such that DatagramAcceptors can create/handle their
> own session objects?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DIRMINA-1172) Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17758540#comment-17758540
]
Emmanuel Lécharny commented on DIRMINA-1172:
The session does not last forever, may be it expired in scenario 2?
> Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
> ---
>
> Key: DIRMINA-1172
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172
> Project: MINA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
>Affects Versions: 2.1.5
>Reporter: Alexander B
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: DIRMINA1172.java, UDPTest4.java,
> apache-mina-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz, mina-core-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
>
>
> Hello,
> I am using two independently created NioDatagramAcceptors, which are created
> by the following code :
> {code:java}
> AbstractIoService inputSource = new NioDatagramAcceptor();
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).getSessionConfig().setReuseAddress(true);
> DefaultIoFilterChainBuilder filterChainBuilderUDP =
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).getFilterChain();
> filterChainBuilderUDP.addLast("logger", new LoggingFilter());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)
> inputSource).getSessionConfig().setIdleTime(IdleStatus.READER_IDLE,
> getIdleTimeout());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).setHandler(this);
> try {
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).bind(new InetSocketAddress(port));
> } catch (IOException e) {
> log.error("Failed to connect {}", e);
> }
> {code}
> One Acceptor is listening on port 9800, the other one on 9801. If I now send
> UDP packages (from a external application) to both ports (independently). It
> seems, that both UDP port are "connected" to the same session.
> Information: The external app is sending:
> Message "TEST_1 " just to port 9800
> Message "TEST_2 " just to port 9801
> The overwritten method messageReceived will give the following output:
> {code:java}
> public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object message) throws
> Exception {
> String msgStr = message.toString();
> log.info("SessionId:" + session.getId() + " " + msgStr);
> }
> {code}
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-2] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904855701
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-3] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_2
> 1681904855701
> So, both messages (for port 9800 and port 9801) are received by SessionId1.
> If I do exactly the same with `NioSocketConnector`, I can see two different
> sessions, such that both messages are handled independently:
> 2023-04-19_11:44:35.725 [NioProcessor-11] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904875701
> 2023-04-19_11:44:37.754 [NioProcessor-15] INFO - SessionId:2 TEST_2
> 1681904875701
> Is there anything I did not mention in the context of UDP/DatagramAcceptor?
> Or is there any setting, such that DatagramAcceptors can create/handle their
> own session objects?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DIRMINA-1172) Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17758460#comment-17758460
]
Alexander B commented on DIRMINA-1172:
--
Actually, I still did not get the clue. Before, the port was not part of the
session key. And scenario 2 worked before. It was just scenario 3, that did not
work. Scenario 2 and 3 are both sending to different ports. The difference is
just from two applications or just from one. In both scenarios you can find
just one sending machine.
> Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
> ---
>
> Key: DIRMINA-1172
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172
> Project: MINA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
>Affects Versions: 2.1.5
>Reporter: Alexander B
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: DIRMINA1172.java, UDPTest4.java,
> apache-mina-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz, mina-core-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
>
>
> Hello,
> I am using two independently created NioDatagramAcceptors, which are created
> by the following code :
> {code:java}
> AbstractIoService inputSource = new NioDatagramAcceptor();
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).getSessionConfig().setReuseAddress(true);
> DefaultIoFilterChainBuilder filterChainBuilderUDP =
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).getFilterChain();
> filterChainBuilderUDP.addLast("logger", new LoggingFilter());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)
> inputSource).getSessionConfig().setIdleTime(IdleStatus.READER_IDLE,
> getIdleTimeout());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).setHandler(this);
> try {
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).bind(new InetSocketAddress(port));
> } catch (IOException e) {
> log.error("Failed to connect {}", e);
> }
> {code}
> One Acceptor is listening on port 9800, the other one on 9801. If I now send
> UDP packages (from a external application) to both ports (independently). It
> seems, that both UDP port are "connected" to the same session.
> Information: The external app is sending:
> Message "TEST_1 " just to port 9800
> Message "TEST_2 " just to port 9801
> The overwritten method messageReceived will give the following output:
> {code:java}
> public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object message) throws
> Exception {
> String msgStr = message.toString();
> log.info("SessionId:" + session.getId() + " " + msgStr);
> }
> {code}
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-2] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904855701
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-3] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_2
> 1681904855701
> So, both messages (for port 9800 and port 9801) are received by SessionId1.
> If I do exactly the same with `NioSocketConnector`, I can see two different
> sessions, such that both messages are handled independently:
> 2023-04-19_11:44:35.725 [NioProcessor-11] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904875701
> 2023-04-19_11:44:37.754 [NioProcessor-15] INFO - SessionId:2 TEST_2
> 1681904875701
> Is there anything I did not mention in the context of UDP/DatagramAcceptor?
> Or is there any setting, such that DatagramAcceptors can create/handle their
> own session objects?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DIRMINA-1172) Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17758452#comment-17758452
]
Emmanuel Lécharny commented on DIRMINA-1172:
Hi, Alexender,
they do have the same IP address, but they aren't sending the data to the same
port. Now that the port is part of the session key, two sessions will be
created.
> Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
> ---
>
> Key: DIRMINA-1172
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172
> Project: MINA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
>Affects Versions: 2.1.5
>Reporter: Alexander B
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: DIRMINA1172.java, UDPTest4.java,
> apache-mina-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz, mina-core-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
>
>
> Hello,
> I am using two independently created NioDatagramAcceptors, which are created
> by the following code :
> {code:java}
> AbstractIoService inputSource = new NioDatagramAcceptor();
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).getSessionConfig().setReuseAddress(true);
> DefaultIoFilterChainBuilder filterChainBuilderUDP =
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).getFilterChain();
> filterChainBuilderUDP.addLast("logger", new LoggingFilter());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)
> inputSource).getSessionConfig().setIdleTime(IdleStatus.READER_IDLE,
> getIdleTimeout());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).setHandler(this);
> try {
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).bind(new InetSocketAddress(port));
> } catch (IOException e) {
> log.error("Failed to connect {}", e);
> }
> {code}
> One Acceptor is listening on port 9800, the other one on 9801. If I now send
> UDP packages (from a external application) to both ports (independently). It
> seems, that both UDP port are "connected" to the same session.
> Information: The external app is sending:
> Message "TEST_1 " just to port 9800
> Message "TEST_2 " just to port 9801
> The overwritten method messageReceived will give the following output:
> {code:java}
> public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object message) throws
> Exception {
> String msgStr = message.toString();
> log.info("SessionId:" + session.getId() + " " + msgStr);
> }
> {code}
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-2] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904855701
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-3] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_2
> 1681904855701
> So, both messages (for port 9800 and port 9801) are received by SessionId1.
> If I do exactly the same with `NioSocketConnector`, I can see two different
> sessions, such that both messages are handled independently:
> 2023-04-19_11:44:35.725 [NioProcessor-11] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904875701
> 2023-04-19_11:44:37.754 [NioProcessor-15] INFO - SessionId:2 TEST_2
> 1681904875701
> Is there anything I did not mention in the context of UDP/DatagramAcceptor?
> Or is there any setting, such that DatagramAcceptors can create/handle their
> own session objects?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (DIRMINA-1172) Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17758431#comment-17758431
]
Alexander B commented on DIRMINA-1172:
--
Thanks a lot - i think my three scenarios are working fine now.
What I actually don't understand is the second scenario: There are two Cmds
from one machine sending to a target machine. For me it seems that these
senders should have the same remote address - don't they? Why did this work
before as well? Just the case sending to two different ports from one
application (on one machine) to one target machine seems to be problematic?
> Multiple DatagramAcceptors and the creation of a session object
> ---
>
> Key: DIRMINA-1172
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-1172
> Project: MINA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
>Affects Versions: 2.1.5
>Reporter: Alexander B
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: DIRMINA1172.java, UDPTest4.java,
> apache-mina-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz, mina-core-2.2.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
>
>
> Hello,
> I am using two independently created NioDatagramAcceptors, which are created
> by the following code :
> {code:java}
> AbstractIoService inputSource = new NioDatagramAcceptor();
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).getSessionConfig().setReuseAddress(true);
> DefaultIoFilterChainBuilder filterChainBuilderUDP =
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).getFilterChain();
> filterChainBuilderUDP.addLast("logger", new LoggingFilter());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)
> inputSource).getSessionConfig().setIdleTime(IdleStatus.READER_IDLE,
> getIdleTimeout());
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor) inputSource).setHandler(this);
> try {
> ((NioDatagramAcceptor)inputSource).bind(new InetSocketAddress(port));
> } catch (IOException e) {
> log.error("Failed to connect {}", e);
> }
> {code}
> One Acceptor is listening on port 9800, the other one on 9801. If I now send
> UDP packages (from a external application) to both ports (independently). It
> seems, that both UDP port are "connected" to the same session.
> Information: The external app is sending:
> Message "TEST_1 " just to port 9800
> Message "TEST_2 " just to port 9801
> The overwritten method messageReceived will give the following output:
> {code:java}
> public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object message) throws
> Exception {
> String msgStr = message.toString();
> log.info("SessionId:" + session.getId() + " " + msgStr);
> }
> {code}
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-2] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904855701
> 2023-04-19_11:47:35.035 [NioDatagramAcceptor-3] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_2
> 1681904855701
> So, both messages (for port 9800 and port 9801) are received by SessionId1.
> If I do exactly the same with `NioSocketConnector`, I can see two different
> sessions, such that both messages are handled independently:
> 2023-04-19_11:44:35.725 [NioProcessor-11] INFO - SessionId:1 TEST_1
> 1681904875701
> 2023-04-19_11:44:37.754 [NioProcessor-15] INFO - SessionId:2 TEST_2
> 1681904875701
> Is there anything I did not mention in the context of UDP/DatagramAcceptor?
> Or is there any setting, such that DatagramAcceptors can create/handle their
> own session objects?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
