On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:53 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
Alex explained to me that for various legal scenarios its very
desirable to have triplesec guardian bind to a single application
and use ldap security to prevent it seeing anything outside that
application. On the other hand jacc requires you to deal with a
set of application components, called policy contexts, within a
single application. My original idea was to say application ==
policy context, but this requires triplesec to have access to the
entire realm in ldap, which includes the users, so that won't work.
So, currently the dn structure is hardcoded to be
appName=foo,ou=applications,<realm dn>
with profiles, permissions, roles, etc right below this rdn. In
particular there's code all over the place to take "foo" and turn
it into "appName=foo,ou=applications".
I think we can simplify the code a bit, satisfy the "log into a
single application", and make the jacc stuff work by generalizing
this rdn. As far as existing code goes I want to pass in a rdn
string wherever the rdn is currently constructed (e.g. as above
from "foo"). This will let people set up the same kind of
structure as they do now if desired, or for jacc introduce another
level
contextID=myWar,appName=foo,ou=applications,....
and perhaps for other purposes add even more levels.
Of course there may well be reasons this won't work, and in
particular I haven't tried to figure out yet if more or different
objectClasses are needed. Any comments would be more than welcome.
David I'm still trying to understand what you mean. So you want to
create different policy contexts (JACC jargon) underneath an
application? What would be contained under these contexts?
we're playing tag here.... I just committed this stuff.
Basically the idea is to make the concept of applications
hierarchical, so you can run triplesec the way it is now with one layer:
appName=myApp, ou=applications,....
or for jacc with sub-applications:
appName=myWar,appName=myApp,ou=applications,...
or for some purpose I haven't thought of yet
appName=mySubSubThingy,appName=mySubThingy,appName=myWar,appName=myApp,a
ppName=myAppCollection,ou=applications,....
The main change is that generally instead of supplying "myApp" you
supply the name segment that identifies your app, such as the strings
shown above. I had to change the PolicyProtectionInterceptor to let
me do this, and I think I found a problem in the aci list
maintenance, see DIRTSEC-3.
I tested the new code with the original server.ldif and everything
worked, then changed it to have 2 levels and fixed the resulting
bugs.... haven't checked that the original 1 level still works but I
can't see why it wouldn't. Checking that would require further
parameterization of the integration tests.
thanks
david jencks
Alex
<akarasulu.vcf>
