Hi Jan,

On Oct 29, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Jan Bartel wrote:

Hi David,

I'm still snatching time to tiptoe further around the jaspi branch.

A couple of thoughts to run by you:

1. UserIdentity and LoginService classnames. These are quasi analogous
to UserPrincipal and UserRealm (although the behaviour has been refactored).
  I'm wondering whether it might not be a good idea to retain the old
  classnames, just so it might be easier for jetty users/developers
  to ease into understanding the new security structures?


I'm not sure that keeping the old names would help anyone understand the new code, I rather think it would be confusing. I'd really rather not call UserIdentity a Principal since it isn't a Principal and depending on the security handler implementation can contain rather different things. The main point of introducing it was that in jetty integrations (Geronimo and from distant memory JBoss) the UserPrincipal was ridiculously overloaded to contain incredible amounts of non-principal information associated with the user's identity. I think that instead it makes sense to have an object that supplies the UserPrincipal, plus whatever else the security system needs. I don't have strong objection to calling the LoginService UserRealm but I think its going to be confusing and less informative since it doesn't have the non-login-service methods any more.

1a. Actually thinking about this, it will probably be quite important for Jetty users to be able to make a smooth transition over to a jaspi- based implementation. Do you think we can retain a UserRealm and a UserPrincipal with all their methods intact, but just "blend in" the jaspi-ness with some extra methods and some changed implementations of the existing apis?


Maybe. I think the new interfaces are a lot clearer and more descriptive for embedding jetty that the old ones. I could look into writing adapters from UserIdentity to UserPrincipal and LoginService to UserRealm but I'm not entirely sure it will work. In particular I'm not at all sure the non login-service methods on UserRealm could plausibly be called.

2. We allow a UserRealm to be explicitly set on a WebAppContext (well,
strictly speaking its WebAppContext.getSecurityHandler().setUserRealm(UserRealm)).
  I couldn't see specific support for that, only getting a list of
  LoginServices from the Server instance. Should be easy enough to
  put in though?

I'm not sure how my code is different, except the LoginService is final and set in the constructor of ServletCallbackHandler, around line 1042 of WebXmlConfiguration. I don't recall changing this code much...



3. With the JAAS stuff, which has its own set of callbacks it
  uses to obtain info, we used a DefaultCallbackHandler to plug in
  the right info, such as credentials, passwords, usernames and
  also extra request parameters from the login. I notice you're using
an anonymous CallbackHandler instead to pass into the JAAS LoginContext. Is it possible to use the DefaultCallbackHandler instead? It supports a couple more callback types that some LoginModule implementations may
  depend on.

I could misunderstand the DefaultCallbackHandler but I think that the extensions to a user-password callback handler all involve extracting credentials from the request. In the jaspi architecture this is the function of the auth module, not the password validation service. A login module that fishes directly in the request ought to be refactored into a plain login module that just validates the credentials and an auth module that extracts the credentials from the message. Despite all the weirdness in jaspi I think this is a good idea and worth enforcing.

I guess someone who really really wanted to preserve their login module could write a subclass of LoginCallback that dealt with request parameters, and a JAASLoginService subclass. This would be made easier by factoring out the CallbackHandler creation in JAASLoginService into a protected method. Looks like I left out some exception handling there too :-( I'd rather not encourage this however.



4. Minor thing - is there a lot of value in the RunAsToken marker interface
  as opposed to just having a String? The roles and role mappings are
  themselves just Strings, so I was wondering what the utility is?

This is an embedding thing also. It's pretty unclear what run-as is actually supposed to mean and how things like supplying the identity for a web service client or other remote call is supposed to work. (If the web service is supposed to be called as the user, rather than the server's identity, and you are in a run-as role, what credentials does this run-as-role identity supply????) In Geronimo we represent the run-as role by a Subject obtained by logging into a security realm. So, the geronimo run-as token has this Subject in it. We might want to store a UserIdentity there instead..... anyway I don't think constraining the representation of the run-as identity is wise.

BTW remember that the current auth modules implementing BASIC/DIGEST/ FORM auth are more or less temporary until we more or less agree on the main interfaces, at which time I plan to rewrite them in more jetty-friendly form (also after apachecon :-)

Many thanks!
david jencks



best regards
Jan

David Jencks wrote:

On Oct 16, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Jan Bartel wrote:

Hi David,

Firstly, let me genuflect in recognition of your extraordinary efforts for a) reading the spec b) being able to make heads or tails of it c)
coming up with an implementation based on it!

:-D


I'm surpressing the urge to have a bit of rant at yet another jcp spec
that is at the same time heavy on the verbiage and light on
comprehensibility. Your email was way more informative
than what 29 people managed to produce in the spec.

Anyway, looking at the code in the jetty-7-jaspi branch, and I admit
that so far I've only just had a cursory nosey around, where would
we integrate the JAAS side of things? Implement a JAASLoginService?

see org.mortbay.jetty.plus.jaas in modules/plus/jetty-plus
Not sure if it is ideal, it's pretty much a simple modification of the
former JAASUserRealm



I'll have a deeper look at the code and get back to you with more
informed comments. This mail is to re-assure you that your post
hasn't fallen into the void and that we are looking forward to
integrating this into jetty-7 trunk!

The main thing to remember might be that the current implementations of built-in security (FORM, BASIC, DIGEST etc) are in jaspi "modules" only until we agree on the jetty api at which point I was thinking to convert
them back into more jetty specific code.  Of course if you decide you
really like jaspi.... :-)


Jan
PS I love this code-comment in ServletCallbackHandler:

* Idiot class required by jaspi stupidity @#*($)#@&^)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&*$@

Several parts of the jaspi spec look to me as if they are sort of stuck on at the end when someone realized it was incomplete, and the heavy use of CallbackHandler for two way communication between the jaspi modules
and the container strikes me as one such point.

thanks
david jencks



:)

David Jencks wrote:
Greg and Jan were kind enough to create a branch for me to play around
with a JASPI (Java Authentication Service Provider Interface)
integration with jetty and its getting to a point where I'm willing to
talk about it.

Code is at https://svn.codehaus.org/jetty/jetty/branches/jetty-7-jaspi

JASPI attempts to provide a uniform framework for messaging systems, both client and server side, to plug in message authentication. On the client you can add auth info to a request and validate auth info on a response. On the server you can validate auth info on a request and add auth info to a response. The auth code can conduct arbitrary message exchanges to negotiate what info is needed and transmit the info. I've
been working on the server side auth for jetty.

The actual spec jaspi interfaces are not 100% ideal for http and don't allow stuff like lazy authentication for unsecured resources so I've
come up with interfaces similar in spirit to the jaspi ones.

I've also tried to rework the implementation so it is more friendly to integration with other app servers with their own ideas about security frameworks such as geronimo and in particular make jacc implementations easier. I expect these changes will also simplify integration with e.g.
jboss and glassfish but I haven't seriously tried to verify this.

Currently all the authentication code (replacing the *Authenticator
classes) is implemented in terms of jaspi but I plan to change this soon
to use the jetty specific interfaces directly.

So.... lets follow a HttpServletRequest/Response pair on its voyage
through the security system...


... it arrives at AbstractSecurityHandler.handle. This is a template
method that runs through the following structure calling out to
subclasses and the authentication system:
1. calls checkUserDataPermissions(pathInContext, base_request,
base_response, constraintInfo). This checks the user data constraints, basically that the request arrived over the right kind of connection
(http/https).  Two obvious implementations of this are the existing
jetty constraint based implementation or one based on JACC.

2. calls isAuthMandatory(base_request, base_response, constraintInfo) to determine if the request actually needs authentication. If it does not we can often delay authentication until a method relying on auth results is called (such as getUserPrincipal or isUserInRole). Again this can be
implemented using constraints or JACC.

3. packs the request, response, and authManditory into a
JettyMessageInfo holder object which can also pass various auth info in
a map.

4. delegates the authentication to the jaspi-like ServerAuthResult
authResult = serverAuthentication.validateRequest(messageInfo);

assuming we are not doing lazy auth, this will extract the credentials from the request (possibly conducing a multi-message exchange with the
client to request the credentials) and validate them.
Validation can use a LoginService possibly provided to the
ServerAuthentication which could be JAAS, Hash, JDBC, etc etc.
Lazy auth results in returning a lazy result that only attempts
authentication when info is actually needed. In this case no message
exchange with the client is possible.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
5. Assuming that authentication succeeded (this includes the lazy case where the request would be allowed even without authentication), we wrap
up the result in an identity delegate:
       UserIdentity userIdentity = newUserIdentity(authResult);
       base_request.setUserIdentity(userIdentity);
The UserIdentity is the delegate for run-as role implementation and
actually answering auth questions from the application program. This
allows app servers to handle run-as roles however they want.

6. Assuming authentication is mandatory, now that we know the user, we
can find out if they are in the appropriate roles:
checkWebResourcePermissions(pathInContext, base_request, base_response,
constraintInfo, userIdentity)

7. On success, we can actually handle the request:
getHandler().handle(pathInContext, messageInfo.getRequestMessage(),
messageInfo.getResponseMessage(), dispatch);

8. Assuming no exceptions were thrown, we can now secure the response
(normally a no-op for http):
serverAuthentication.secureResponse(messageInfo, authResult);

-------------------------------------------

JASPI implementations

I wrote a fairly complete jaspi framework implementation for geronimo (rather than the bits actually needed for http which I wrote for jetty) and have a nearly-untested openid implementation. This (theoretically) lets you openid-enable your app by supplying an appropriate login page
and useing the openid auth module.

Theres also a glassfish implementation that I haven't looked at and
someone wrote a SPNEGO auth module that works with it.
http://spnego.ocean.net.au/

--------------------------------------------

How does this differ from what's there now?

SecurityHandler:  AbstractSecurityHandler now just has the basic
workflow described about and delegates all actual work to either
subclasses (for authorization decisions and object creation) or the
authentication delegate.  This makes it easy to plug in alternate
implementations such as a JACC implementation for an EE server.

Authentication results and run-as roles: Formerly these were either directly set in the request (possibly using lazy evaluation, with code again in Request) or stuffed into a Principal implementation via the
UserRealm.  This really overloaded the idea of a Principal for no
apparent reason and made integration into app servers slightly
convoluted. This is replaced with a UserIdentity interface providing separate access to the auth results (user principal) and role handling
(isUserInRole, and run-as handling).  Subclasses of
AbstractSecurityHandler can provide their own implementations of this
interface.  These typically delegate to implementations of
ServerAuthResult, which can handle lazy authentication if necessary.

UserRealm IMO glues together a lot of unrelated functions, primarily the role handling code now in UserIdentity and the credential validation now in LoginService. Credential validation may not even be needed by the
server (e.g. openid).  If needed it's called from something that
extracts credentials from the request. Implementations are going to do something like look up the user in a file or table or delegate to JAAS.
On the other hand the role handling is called by jetty or by the
application and the implementation is done by the app server (jetty or e.g. geronimo). Aside from being related somehow to security, these are
totally unrelated concerns.

--------------------------------------------------

How does ServerAuthentication and LoginService relate to JASPI?

The JASPI interface similar to ServerAuthentication is
ServerAuthContext:

void cleanSubject(MessageInfo messageInfo, Subject subject) throws
AuthException;

  AuthStatus secureResponse(MessageInfo messageInfo, Subject
serviceSubject) throws AuthException;

  AuthStatus validateRequest(MessageInfo messageInfo, Subject
clientSubject, Subject serviceSubject) throws AuthException;

The main difference is that ServerAuthentication packages all the
results into a ServerAuthResult object rather than modifying the
clientSubject directly and hiding user principal and group info in some callback handers. This lets ServerAuthentication support lazy auth.

As far as configuration goes. you get a ServerAuthContext by calling a whole lotta methods on some other stuff. or.... you can just create one and stuff it into an adapter, JaspiServerAuthentication. Probably we
want to implement the built in auth methods as direct
ServerAuthentication implementations rather than the current
ServerAuthModule implementations (a ServerAuthContext is supposed to
delegate to one or more ServerAuthModules, which have the same
interface).

LoginService is a pretty straightforward way of asking for password
validation and getting some info back. JASPI has a peculiar IMO system based on Callbacks. The container (jetty) supplies the auth context
with a CallbackHandler that enables bi-directional communication.
Callbacks providing services to the auth module:

PasswordValidationCallback: this lets the auth module ask for password
validation: this is the closest to LoginService.
CertStoreCallback, PrivateKeyCallback, SecretKeyCallback, and
TrustStoreCallback all let the auth module ask for certificate
services. AFAICT these are mostly for securing response messages, which
is typically not done for http.

Callbacks letting the auth module pass info to the server:
CallerPrincipalCallback: supplies the caller principal so
getCallerPrincipal can return something.
GroupPrincipalCallback supplies "groups" the user may be in.  The
meaning here is rather undefined but can be mapped to roles in some way,
such as by assuming the groups and roles are the same.

The use of callbacks here still seems rather weird to me but may make more sense in the context of other messaging systems: jaspi is supposed to be applicable to all sorts of messaging, including ejb calls, jms,
web services, etc etc.

I've put the caller principal and groups into the ServerAuthResult
object where they can be accessed directly (although possibly determined
lazily).


--------------------------------------------------------------

Comments...

Right now it looks to me as if form auth needs to be non-lazy since part of the message exchange involves a request to j_security_check which is
normally not a secured response.  Trying to evaluate auth for this
lazily doesn't work... you never get back to the original request.

I don't see how this implementation could be significantly simplified or
sped up.... I'm certainly willing to look at problems.

I've been discussing JACC with Greg for a long time now. The only thing I can see that is possible with constraint implementations that is not possible with jacc is redirecting an http request to the "equivalent" https request if a user data constraint is violated. I'm curious about
whether this is something people want to do or usually set up.

Many thanks,
david jencks







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

 http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





--
Jan Bartel, Webtide LLC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.webtide.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

  http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

  http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





--
Jan Bartel, Webtide LLC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.webtide.com

Reply via email to