On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:41, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 19:35 , Randall Leeds wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:19, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 19:13 , Randall Leeds wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 04:14, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Devs, >>>>> >>>>> Please outline: >>>>> >>>>> - What has been changed since round one of the 1.2.0 release >>>>> - What remains to be fixed for regression purposes >>>>> - Who is doing these fixes, and when will they be done by >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> N >>>> >>>> I'd like to know if it was always the case that design doc actions on >>>> system dbs were inaccessible to non-admins or if that's just since the >>>> recent security changes. If it's recent, why was that part deemed >>>> necessary and can we remove it? >>> >>> It is part of the recent changes and the reason is that a view potentially >>> leaks information about docs and we don't want that. I'm happy to relax this >>> later if we can convince people to write views that don't compromise their >>> security, but until then I opted for the more secure default. >>> >> >> I motion to remove this restriction now, unless there are actions on >> the system dbs, installed by default, that leak anything at all. >> I see the motivation but I feel it might be overly paranoid. Only an >> admin can modify the ddocs. If a user decides to add views to >> _replicator or _user they had best think about what they expose and to >> whom. >> >> If there's no objection I can try to tackle this in the evening. > > I object :)
Hmm. What's your reasoning?
