Shawn Eion Smith created FC-116:
-----------------------------------
Summary: Need the ability to get user specific attributes for fine
grained access determinations
Key: FC-116
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FC-116
Project: FORTRESS
Issue Type: Improvement
Reporter: Shawn Eion Smith
Below is the email chain that discusses the problem and suggested solution
----------------------- Final Suggestion
---------------------------------------------------
> Can I recommend we do something like
>
> ftCondition
>
> with the keys being non-unique values that represent groupings, such as
> application names
>
> ftCondition applicationA:conditionparameters
>
> The API could present it back as a Map>
Let’s change the name to ‘ftAttributes’ because essential what we’re doing here
is a poor man’s ABAC. Agree that a map is the way to go. That way it is up to
the client to interpret. Eventually we can add a callback interface to
checkAccess that triggers on a flag in the permission itself. The permission
points to the class name, and fortress uses reflexion to call it (passing the
map and session) during the course of the authorization check.
Let’s start with opening a ticket, and we can go from there.
Thanks,
Shawn
--------------------------- Full Discussion
-----------------------------------------------
Can I recommend we do something like
ftCondition
with the keys being non-unique values that represent groupings, such as
application names
ftCondition applicationA:conditionparameters
The API could present it back as a Map>
(The other) Shawn
"The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff.
He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the
imagination."
— Fred Brooks
Shawn Smith
Director of Software Engineering
Administrative Information Services
814-321-5227
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: "SHAWN E SMITH" psu.edu>
To: [email protected], "Shawn McKinney" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:07:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [Bulk] RBAC Constraints
As a simple (or maybe overly simple) use case imagine a application that can
lock accounts. You only want folks to be able to lock accounts within their
own department so you get
Role Permission Context
Security Lock department = x (or department = x || y)
The permission refers to the method, the context refers to the individual.
It can start to get a little challenging when you allow more complexity to the
context like
(context1 && context2) || context3
I'll try to find a better word than context, that one's just stuck in my
vernacular for now.
Shawn
"The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff.
He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the
imagination."
— Fred Brooks
Shawn Smith
Director of Software Engineering
Administrative Information Services
814-321-5227
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn McKinney" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 9:47:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [Bulk] RBAC Constraints
(The other) Shawn,
I think your idea to add additional attributes into the authorization decision
has merit. ftcontextid is reserved for multitenancy (i.e. tenant id), but
ftproperties is fine. I'd like to see some use cases for this and maybe we can
find an appropriate way to facilitate into this api set / data model.
I saw your talks were accepted - congrats on that btw. I am out of town this
week but could hop on conf call next week to discuss.
Arkanshawn
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:37 PM, SHAWN E SMITH psu.edu> wrote:
Hey Arkanshawn,
Hope all's well. What we're looking at is the granularity of the permissions
in the context of standard EE security. What we've come up with is:
Role---------------Permission----------------Context
| | |
Grouping Specific Specific
of Permission Context
Permissions (i.e. - for a
system-read) given user
And how that translates is that in the case of @RolesAllowed(X), X is actually
a permission, and the context is used inside the method to determine how to
slice the data if necessary.
Context we've broken into 3 pieces, Meta (this is the flag used to determine
what to slice on), Type (this is the type of the meta field), Value(s)/Range
(This is the valid matching attributes)
We're looking at putting the context into an ftProp value on the individual and
using business logic in the app to interpret. I think there might be value in
using something like ftContext, but wanted to see if we can get the communities
take on it.
So, what we'd end up with is something similar to
systemX-read:userid:string:self in the property.
Would very much appreciate any thoughts on this approach.
BTW - we got selected for both talks at JavaONE, maybe we can have a phone con
about the security one in the relatively near future?
Take care,
Shawn
"The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff.
He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the
imagination."
— Fred Brooks
Shawn Smith
Director of Software Engineering
Administrative Information Services
814-321-5227
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn McKinney" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 11:41:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [Bulk] RBAC Constraints
Today there is no way to do it. The existing constraint mechanism here is for
role activation only - not permission checks. It is worth discussing adding
something like this. It would no be difficult. It would require you to
implement a callback interface. Would something like that work?
Shawn
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 9:59 AM, Chris Pike psu.edu> wrote:
>
> Shawn,
>
> Thanks for the quick response. I was able to implement the time validator
> interface but the validator compares a provided time against the constraint.
> I need to compare my arbitrary input against the constraint. I should be able
> to store the constraint info and look it up inside the validator, but how can
> I pass my arbitrary input to check access?
>
> ~Chris Pike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shawn McKinney" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 11:17:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RBAC Constraints
>
>> On Aug 24, 2015, at 8:14 AM, Shawn McKinney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. Implement the org.apache.directory.fortress.core.util.timeValidator
>> interface. The existing temporal evaluators all reside inside the same
>> package. You may use one of those as an example.
>
> correction:
>
> Implement the org.apache.directory.fortress.core.util.time.Validator
> interface.
>
> Shawn
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
