Hi Sean,
Why would you need to prevent CFCs from being instantiated by other than authorized 
users? Couldn't you simply apply Roles to the methods of the CFC, thus preventing 
unauthorized users actually making the instance DO anything? Have you come up with a 
parallel approach?

I ask this because I have made extensive use of roles and am starting to worry about 
its impact on my ability to efficiently expose CFC webservices. Brandon Purcell posted 
a response to an earlier query of mine on the topic and made available some excellent 
work he has done on using various methods of authentication and session management 
(for remoting, webservices, etc) @ 
http://www.bpurcell.org/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&ENTRY=978

My use of roles makes for a very fine-grained functional security model, but if it is 
going to make my life harder when I want to use these classes outside of CF (via 
webservices or remoting), I need to start thinking hard about how to move forward.  
The previous post and Brandon's response can be found here 
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03624.html

Anyone else have anything to add to this?  My specific concern would be calling 
role-secured CFC methods from Flash through either remoting or webservices and 
maintaining session state across multiple calls.  Essentially, floating a flash app on 
top of a CFC backend that relies on roles to secure most methods.

Cheers,
Chip Temm
Dir Knowledge Architecture
Conservation International
Washington, DC, USA
+1 202 912 1402


-----Original Message------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Sean A Corfield
Sent: 27 March 2004 19:31
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] documentation concern


On Mar 27, 2004, at 12:46 PM, Nathan Dintenfass wrote:
> So, are people just not running into this because they don't do any 
> external
> "work" in their pseudo-constructors?  Are they just accepting that 
> it's a
> fact of life?  Are they unaware of the potential for badness?  Is 
> there a
> work-around I'm unaware of?

We have a couple of CFCs that cannot be viewed through the cfcexplorer 
because of work they do in the pseudo-constructor but they are the 
exception (they do security-related things to prevent the CFCs being 
instantiated except by authorized users - they're part of our 
membership subsystem which is very tightly locked document). We are 
generally very careful to do nothing beyond simple instance variable 
initialization in the pseudo-constructor.

Regards,
Sean
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
in the message of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to