Because this looks like it might involve some experimentation, I decided to create a branch for working on the CONNECTORS-195 ticket. The branch has what I believe is the correct code checked into it. The branch svn root is:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/branches/CONNECTORS-195 If you check this branch out and build it, I'd dearly love to know if it properly detects non-existent users on your system. In theory it should. If it is wrong, it might well decide that ALL users are invalid, so your feedback is essential before I consider committing this patch. Thanks, Karl On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > I opened a ticket, CONNECTORS-195, and added what I think is an > explicit check for existence of the user as a patch. Can you apply > the patch and let me know if it seems to fix the problem? > > Thanks, > Karl > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I see, thanks for the response. >> I'll look into it little deeper, before making a suggestion how to check for >> this internal exception.. If JDK 1.6 behavior is different than JDK 1.5 for >> LDAP, this may not be the only problem we may encounter.. >> Maybe any exception generated by JDK during this request should be >> evaluated.. We'll see. >> Thanks. >> Kadri >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> "NameNotFound exception is never being reached because process is >>> throwing internal exception, and this is never checked." >>> >>> I see the logging trace; it looks like the ldap code is eating the >>> exception and returning a blank list. This is explicitly NOT what is >>> supposed to happen, nor did it happen on JDK 1.5, I am certain. You >>> might find that this behavior has changed between Java releases. >>> >>> "Also, what is the reason for adding everyone group for each response ?" >>> >>> I added this in because the standard treatment of Active Directory >>> 2000 and 2003 was to exclude the public ACL. Since all users have it, >>> if the user exists (which was the case if NameNotFound exception was >>> not being thrown), it was always safe to add it in. >>> >>> >>> If JDK xxx, which is eating the internal exception, gives back SOME >>> signal that the user does not exist, we can certainly check for that. >>> What signal do you recommend looking for, based on the trace? Is >>> there any way to get at "errEx PartialResultException (id=7962) " >>> from NamingEnumeration answer? >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.ka...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Karl, >>> > >>> > I noticed in the code that NameNotFound exception is never being >>> > reached >>> > because process is throwing internal exception, and this is never >>> > checked. >>> > (see below) >>> > Also, what is the reason for adding everyone group for each response ? >>> > theGroups.add("S-1-1-0"); >>> > >>> > When there is no groups or SID's returned, following return code is >>> > still >>> > used.. >>> > return new >>> > AuthorizationResponse(tokens,AuthorizationResponse.RESPONSE_OK); >>> > >>> > Should I assume this code was tested against an Active Directory, and >>> > working, and or should I start checking from the beginning every >>> > parameter >>> > is entered. (see below) >>> > For example, in the following code, DIGEST-MD5 GSSAPI is used for >>> > security >>> > authentication, but user name and password is passed as a clear text.. >>> > and >>> > not in the format they suggest in their documentation. >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > >>> > Kadri >>> > >>> > >>> > http://download.oracle.com/javase/jndi/tutorial/ldap/security/gssapi.html >>> > >>> > >>> > if (ctx == null) >>> > { >>> > // Calculate the ldap url first >>> > String ldapURL = "ldap://"; + domainControllerName + ":389"; >>> > >>> > Hashtable env = new Hashtable(); >>> > >>> > >>> > env.put(Context.INITIAL_CONTEXT_FACTORY,"com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory"); >>> > env.put(Context.SECURITY_AUTHENTICATION,"DIGEST-MD5 GSSAPI"); >>> > env.put(Context.SECURITY_PRINCIPAL,userName); >>> > env.put(Context.SECURITY_CREDENTIALS,password); >>> > >>> > //connect to my domain controller >>> > env.put(Context.PROVIDER_URL,ldapURL); >>> > >>> > //specify attributes to be returned in binary format >>> > env.put("java.naming.ldap.attributes.binary","tokenGroups >>> > objectSid"); >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > fakeuser@teqa >>> > >>> > //Search for objects using the filter >>> > NamingEnumeration answer = ctx.search(searchBase, searchFilter, >>> > searchCtls); >>> > >>> > answer LdapSearchEnumeration (id=6635) >>> > cleaned false >>> > cont Continuation (id=6674) >>> > entries Vector<E> (id=6675) >>> > enumClnt LdapClient (id=6676) >>> > authenticateCalled true >>> > conn Connection (id=6906) >>> > isLdapv3 true >>> > pcb null >>> > pooled false >>> > referenceCount 1 >>> > unsolicited Vector<E> (id=6907) >>> > errEx PartialResultException (id=6677) >>> > cause PartialResultException (id=6677) >>> > detailMessage "[LDAP: error code 10 - 0000202B: RefErr: >>> > DSID-031006E0, data 0, 1 access points\n\tref 1: 'teqa'\n >>> > >>> > >>> > ArrayList theGroups = new ArrayList(); >>> > // All users get certain well-known groups >>> > theGroups.add("S-1-1-0"); >>> > >>> > >>> > answer LdapSearchEnumeration (id=7940) >>> > cleaned false >>> > cont Continuation (id=7959) >>> > entries Vector<E> (id=7960) >>> > enumClnt LdapClient (id=7961) >>> > errEx PartialResultException (id=7962) >>> > cause PartialResultException (id=7962) >>> > detailMessage "[LDAP: error code 10 - 0000202B: RefErr: >>> > DSID-031006E0, data 0, 1 access points\n\tref 1: 'teqa'\n >>> > >>> > return new >>> > AuthorizationResponse(tokens,AuthorizationResponse.RESPONSE_OK); >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> If a completely unknown user still comes back as existing, then it's >>> >> time to look at how your domain controller is configured. >>> >> Specifically, what do you have it configured to trust? What version >>> >> of Windows is this? >>> >> >>> >> The way LDAP tells you a user does not exist in Java is by an >>> >> exception. So this statement: >>> >> >>> >> NamingEnumeration answer = ctx.search(searchBase, searchFilter, >>> >> searchCtls); >>> >> >>> >> will throw the NameNotFoundException if the name doesn't exist, which >>> >> the Active Directory connector then catches: >>> >> >>> >> catch (NameNotFoundException e) >>> >> { >>> >> // This means that the user doesn't exist >>> >> return userNotFoundResponse; >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> Clearly this is not working at all for your setup. Maybe you can look >>> >> at the DC's event logs, and see what kinds of decisions it is making >>> >> here? It's not making much sense to me at this point. >>> >> >>> >> Karl >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.ka...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Get the same result with user doesn't exist >>> >> > C:\OPT\security_example>curl >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=fakeuser@fakedomain"; >>> >> > AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC >>> >> > TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0 >>> >> > >>> >> > BTW, is there a command to get all users available in Active >>> >> > Directory, >>> >> > from >>> >> > mcf-authority service, or other test commands to see if it's working >>> >> > correctly ? >>> >> > >>> >> > Also, I set the logging level to finest from Solr Admin for >>> >> > ManifoldCFSecurityFilter,but I don't see any logs created.. Is there >>> >> > any >>> >> > other settings need to be tweaked ? >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks >>> >> > >>> >> > Kadri >>> >> > >>> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> One other quick note. You might want to try a user that doesn't >>> >> >> exist >>> >> >> and see what you get. It should be a USERNOTFOUND response. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> If that's indeed what you get back, then this is a relatively minor >>> >> >> issue with Active Directory. Basically the S-1-1-0 SID is added by >>> >> >> the active directory authority, so the DC is actually returning an >>> >> >> empty list of SIDs for the user with an unknown domain. It *should* >>> >> >> tell us the user doesn't exist, I agree, but that's clearly a >>> >> >> problem >>> >> >> only Active Directory can solve; we can't make that decision in the >>> >> >> active directory connector because the DC may be just one node in a >>> >> >> hierarchy. Perhaps there's a Microsoft knowledge-base article that >>> >> >> would clarify things further. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Please let me know what you find. >>> >> >> Karl >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> > The method code from the Active Directory authority that handles >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > LDAP query construction is below. It looks perfectly reasonable >>> >> >> > to >>> >> >> > me: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > /** Parse a user name into an ldap search base. */ >>> >> >> > protected static String parseUser(String userName) >>> >> >> > throws ManifoldCFException >>> >> >> > { >>> >> >> > //String searchBase = >>> >> >> > "CN=Administrator,CN=Users,DC=qa-ad-76,DC=metacarta,DC=com"; >>> >> >> > int index = userName.indexOf("@"); >>> >> >> > if (index == -1) >>> >> >> > throw new ManifoldCFException("Username is in unexpected form >>> >> >> > (no @): '"+userName+"'"); >>> >> >> > String userPart = userName.substring(0,index); >>> >> >> > String domainPart = userName.substring(index+1); >>> >> >> > // Start the search base assembly >>> >> >> > StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(); >>> >> >> > sb.append("CN=").append(userPart).append(",CN=Users"); >>> >> >> > int j = 0; >>> >> >> > while (true) >>> >> >> > { >>> >> >> > int k = domainPart.indexOf(".",j); >>> >> >> > if (k == -1) >>> >> >> > { >>> >> >> > sb.append(",DC=").append(domainPart.substring(j)); >>> >> >> > break; >>> >> >> > } >>> >> >> > sb.append(",DC=").append(domainPart.substring(j,k)); >>> >> >> > j = k+1; >>> >> >> > } >>> >> >> > return sb.toString(); >>> >> >> > } >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > So I have to conclude that your Active Directory domain controller >>> >> >> > is >>> >> >> > simply not caring what the DC= fields are, for some reason. No >>> >> >> > idea >>> >> >> > why. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > If you want to confirm this picture, you might want to create a >>> >> >> > patch >>> >> >> > to add some Logging.authorityConnectors.debug statements at >>> >> >> > appropriate places so we can see the actual query it's sending to >>> >> >> > LDAP. I'm happy to commit this debug output patch eventually if >>> >> >> > you >>> >> >> > also want to create a ticket. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Thanks, >>> >> >> > Karl >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Kadri Atalay >>> >> >> > <atalay.ka...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> Yes, ManifoldCF is running with JCIFS connector, and using Solr >>> >> >> >> 3.1 >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> response to first call: >>> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe"; >>> >> >> >> UNREACHABLEAUTHORITY:TEQA-DC >>> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> response to fake domain call: >>> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe@fakedomain"; >>> >> >> >> AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC >>> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0 >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> response to actual domain account call: >>> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay_admin@teqa"; >>> >> >> >> AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC >>> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0 >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Looks like as long as there is a domain suffix, return is >>> >> >> >> positive.. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Thanks >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Kadri >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karl Wright >>> >> >> >> <daddy...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> So you are trying to extend the example in the book, correct, to >>> >> >> >>> run >>> >> >> >>> against active directory and the JCIFS connector? And this is >>> >> >> >>> with >>> >> >> >>> Solr 3.1? >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> The book was written for Solr 1.4.1, so it's entirely possible >>> >> >> >>> that >>> >> >> >>> something in Solr changed in relation to the way search >>> >> >> >>> components >>> >> >> >>> are >>> >> >> >>> used. So I think we're going to need to do some debugging. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> (1) First, to confirm sanity, try using curl against the mcf >>> >> >> >>> authority >>> >> >> >>> service. Try some combination of users to see how that works, >>> >> >> >>> e.g.: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> curl >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe"; >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> ...and >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> curl >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe@fakedomain"; >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> ...and also the real domain name, whatever that is. See if the >>> >> >> >>> access >>> >> >> >>> tokens that come back look correct. If they don't then we know >>> >> >> >>> where >>> >> >> >>> there's an issue. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> If they *are* correct, let me know and we'll go to the next >>> >> >> >>> stage, >>> >> >> >>> which would be to make sure the authority service is actually >>> >> >> >>> getting >>> >> >> >>> called and the proper query is being built and run under Solr >>> >> >> >>> 3.1. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> Karl >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Kadri Atalay >>> >> >> >>> <atalay.ka...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> > Hi Karl, >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I followed the instructions, and for testing purposes set >>> >> >> >>> > "stored=true" >>> >> >> >>> > to >>> >> >> >>> > be able to see the ACL values stored in Solr. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > But, when I run the search in following format I get peculiar >>> >> >> >>> > results.. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > :http://10.1.200.155:8080/solr/select/?q=*%3A*&AuthenticatedUserName=username >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Any user name without a domain name ie >>> >> >> >>> > AuthenticatedUserName=joe >>> >> >> >>> > does >>> >> >> >>> > not >>> >> >> >>> > return any results (which is correct) >>> >> >> >>> > But any user name with ANY domain name returns all the indexes >>> >> >> >>> > ie >>> >> >> >>> > AuthenticatedUserName=joe@fakedomain (which is not correct) >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Any thoughts ? >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Thanks >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Kadri >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Karl Wright >>> >> >> >>> > <daddy...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Solr 3.1 is being clever here; it's seeing arguments coming >>> >> >> >>> >> in >>> >> >> >>> >> that >>> >> >> >>> >> do >>> >> >> >>> >> not correspond to known schema fields, and presuming they are >>> >> >> >>> >> "automatic" fields. So when the schema is unmodified, you >>> >> >> >>> >> see >>> >> >> >>> >> these >>> >> >> >>> >> fields that Solr creates for you, with the attr_ prefix. >>> >> >> >>> >> They >>> >> >> >>> >> are >>> >> >> >>> >> created as being "stored", which is not good for access >>> >> >> >>> >> tokens >>> >> >> >>> >> since >>> >> >> >>> >> then you will see them in the response. I don't know if they >>> >> >> >>> >> are >>> >> >> >>> >> indexed or not, but I imagine not, which is also not good. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> So following the instructions is still the right thing to do, >>> >> >> >>> >> I >>> >> >> >>> >> would >>> >> >> >>> >> say. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Karl >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Kadri Atalay >>> >> >> >>> >> <atalay.ka...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> > Hi Karl, >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > There is one thing I noticed while following the example in >>> >> >> >>> >> > chapter >>> >> >> >>> >> > 4.: >>> >> >> >>> >> > Prior to making any changes into the schema.xml, I was able >>> >> >> >>> >> > to >>> >> >> >>> >> > see >>> >> >> >>> >> > the >>> >> >> >>> >> > following security information in query responses: >>> >> >> >>> >> > ie: >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > <doc> >>> >> >> >>> >> > - >>> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_allow_token_document"> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-3-0</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-13</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-18</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-544</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-545</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-547</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > </arr> >>> >> >> >>> >> > - >>> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_allow_token_share"> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-2</str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > - >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > TEQA-DC:S-1-5-21-1212545812-2858578934-3563067286-1480 >>> >> >> >>> >> > </str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > </arr> >>> >> >> >>> >> > - >>> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_content"> >>> >> >> >>> >> > - >>> >> >> >>> >> > <str> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Autonomy ODBC Fetch Technical >>> >> >> >>> >> > Brief >>> >> >> >>> >> > 0506 >>> >> >> >>> >> > Technical Brief >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > But, after I modified the schema/xml, and added the >>> >> >> >>> >> > following >>> >> >> >>> >> > fields, >>> >> >> >>> >> > <!-- Security fields --> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <field name="allow_token_document" type="string" >>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true" >>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <field name="deny_token_document" type="string" >>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true" >>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <field name="allow_token_share" type="string" >>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true" >>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <field name="deny_token_share" type="string" >>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true" >>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > I longer see neither the attr_allow_token_document or the >>> >> >> >>> >> > allow_token_document fields.. >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > Since same fields exist with attr_ prefix, should we need >>> >> >> >>> >> > to >>> >> >> >>> >> > add >>> >> >> >>> >> > these >>> >> >> >>> >> > new >>> >> >> >>> >> > field names into the schema file, or can we simply change >>> >> >> >>> >> > ManifoldSecurity >>> >> >> >>> >> > to use attr_ fields ? >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > Also, when Solr is running under Tomcat, I have to re-start >>> >> >> >>> >> > the >>> >> >> >>> >> > Solr >>> >> >> >>> >> > App, or >>> >> >> >>> >> > re-start Tomcat to see the newly added indexes.. >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > Any thoughts ? >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > Thanks >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > Kadri >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Karl Wright >>> >> >> >>> >> > <daddy...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I don't believe Solr has yet officially released document >>> >> >> >>> >> >> access >>> >> >> >>> >> >> control, so you will need to use the patch for ticket >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 1895. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Alternatively, the ManifoldCF in Action chapter 4 example >>> >> >> >>> >> >> has >>> >> >> >>> >> >> an >>> >> >> >>> >> >> implementation based on this ticket. You can get the code >>> >> >> >>> >> >> for >>> >> >> >>> >> >> it at >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> https://manifoldcfinaction.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/edition_1/security_example. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Karl >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Kadri Atalay >>> >> >> >>> >> >> <atalay.ka...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Hello, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Does anyone know which version of Solr have implements >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Document >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Level >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Access Control, or has it implemented (partially or >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > fully) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > ? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Particularly issue #s 1834, 1872, 1895 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Thanks >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Kadri >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >
