Ok, that totally makes sense to me. Let me enhance the interface to provide more non jaas tied methods and get back to this list.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Kurt Westerfeld <[email protected]>wrote: > I was thinking of Shiro as a provider for the authorization engine, not as > the actual interfaces. > > I actually think the container should provide a default implementation for > security concerns. If you look at JEE, there are definitely standards > there, which haven't worked out perfectly, but at least are constructs for > people to build on. In the OSGi world, I believe the container should be > configurable to provide a default realm (it is in Karaf), and there should > be an easy mapping from the application to the container's security (this > isn't hard to do, but since it is left up to the developer, I think it's > not done that well). > > For example, if I decide to tie my Karaf implementation to LDAP, I can > provide config to do that. Now, I'd like it if by doing that, my > application is wired to that LDAP provider and I just move along to other > concerns. If I want to do that myself, I can make a separate choice on the > login realm to tie my application to it's own config. > > The main point I was making, though, is that your interface requires a > Subject. Getting one of those is not always an easy thing, and there's a > lot of value-add in at least putting a stake in the ground as to how one > obtains a Subject. Each component library, as an example, could provide an > implementation of a provider of Subject material it its own way, and from > an application point-of-view, one would simply call "getCurrentSubject()". > In my opinion, that's not always an easy thing to get right. > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thx for the feedback, Kurt. > > > > I've looked at Shiro when working on this feature. Actually, the > > interface, and even a class I use for the implementation come from shiro. > > The reason why I discarded reusing shiro directly is mainly that it does > > not provide the features we need. However, that's clearly not a blocking > > point and we could very well reimplement them all on top of shiro, mostly > > the realms would not necessarily cover our use cases I think, or at > least, > > we'd have to break compatibility completely. Or maybe another way to > > integrate would be to implement a jaas realm based on shiro and bridge > that > > way, not sure if that's really a good idea though. > > > > However, the exemple you have is clearly on the app level, and there's > imho > > not a real need to have application security integrated with the > container > > security. If you deploy shiro in a web app, you clearly not integrate > with > > the web container security, so I don't think this is a real problem. So > > applications still clearly have the option of deploying shiro and > > configuring it for their needs. > > > > I'm happy to discuss that further if people have other opinions. The > above > > just explains why i didn't choose shiro at first and I certainly don't > want > > to reject this option without discussion. > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Kurt Westerfeld > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I think the problem you find as you go down this route, is not that > this > > > checkPermission/isPermitted won't work for this command interface, but > > that > > > there is a more fundamental problem across Karaf-based apps and > > enterprise > > > apps in general, in that a javax.security.auth.Subject may actually be > a > > > difficult thing to uniformly provide. This is because of the > > asynchronous > > > nature of Camel/ODE/whatever even within a short-run transaction in an > > ESB, > > > and also commonly, the way in which long-running processes can > > > hibernate/unhibernate their context/state over time before a particular > > > service might actually need the Subject information an originating > caller > > > to a service actually had. > > > > > > Simplest case: > > > - web service call call is authenticated, via basic auth, > WS-Security, > > > whatever > > > - web service calls camel > > > - camel route implements vm: queue, which blocks caller until > complete > > > - route actually needs Subject, but thread-local context techniques > > > don't work here > > > > > > Now, perhaps Camel has resolved this (it hadn't a while back), and > > > something like Apache ODE definitely hasn't (you have to manage this > > stuff > > > yourself), but you can see a need here to have something like > > > "getSubject()" as a globally-applicable construct in Karaf/ESB > > > implementations. > > > > > > In one project that combined Java services, Camel services, and ODE > > > services, I had to create a SPI mechanism with OSGi to allow different > > > "providers" of javax.security.auth.Subject to have a crack at providing > > the > > > subject for any caller. In some cases, a thread-local could suffice, > and > > > in other cases another strategy had to be used (such as stashing the > data > > > inside a CXF message header, etc). > > > > > > As to your interface, I would also add methods such as > "hasRole(String)" > > > because it could be a more convenient way to deal with this. > > > > > > Have you looked at Apache Shiro? I think there's a lot to be learned > > from > > > there, and I've started to use Shiro in some of my projects. > > > > > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've worked last week on a solution for KARAF-979, i.e. providing a > way > > > to > > > > secure shell commands. > > > > What I came up with is the following. > > > > > > > > A new simple authentication service, exposed as an OSGi service with > > the > > > > following interface > > > > > > > > public interface AuthorizationService { > > > > > > > > void checkPermission(Subject subject, String permission); > > > > > > > > boolean isPermitted(Subject subject, String permission); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > This service would be used transparently by karaf commands by > modifying > > > the > > > > BlueprintCommand class and calling checkPermission with the current > > > Subject > > > > and a permission which is > > > > "command:" + [scope] + ":" + [command] > > > > > > > > Permissions can be set through ConfigAdmin using a single property > > which > > > > contains an xml which looks like: > > > > <entries> > > > > <entry permission="[xxx]" roles="[xxx]" type="add|set|modify" > /> > > > > [ more entries ] > > > > </entries> > > > > > > > > The matching is done by checking the permission given in the call to > > the > > > > AuthorizationService with the entries in the configuration. Matching > > > > entries are used to compute the list of authorized roles and those > > roles > > > > are checked against the roles of the authenticated Subject. > > > > This mechanism is the same we had in ServiceMix 3.x. > > > > > > > > This allows to define permissions for a subshell or a single command. > > It > > > > does not provide a very easy way to split read operations from write > > > > operations and this would have to be done in an example configuration > > > maybe > > > > to ease the user task. > > > > That said, the mechanism is easily extensible and we can later add > > > > permissions for JMX access or any other part of Karaf that would > > benefit > > > > from that. > > > > > > > > Thoughts welcomed, as usual. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > ------------------------ > > > > FuseSource, Integration everywhere > > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------ > > Guillaume Nodet > > ------------------------ > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------ > > FuseSource, Integration everywhere > > http://fusesource.com > > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ FuseSource, Integration everywhere http://fusesource.com
