Keith Wall created QPID-7928:
--------------------------------

             Summary: [Java Broker] [ACL] Authorisation decisions about the 
access control provider itself consider its own local rules rather than those 
of the wider system
                 Key: QPID-7928
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7928
             Project: Qpid
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: Java Broker
    Affects Versions: qpid-java-6.1
            Reporter: Keith Wall
            Priority: Minor
             Fix For: qpid-java-broker-7.0.0


When making an authorisation decision about an AccessControlProvider object, 
currently the implementation considers only the rules provider by the provider 
itself, rather than delegating the decision to the hierarchical  mechanism.   
This can mean that an authorisation decision that ought to be allowed is 
denied.  

For example, consider a Broker configured with the following {{RuleBased}} 
AccessControlProviders:

1) Broker rule-set {{ACL ALLOW admin ALL ALL}}
2) VirtualHost specific rule-set for user  {{ACL ALLOW messaging_user...}}

As {{admin}}, if I try to update the VirtualHost's {{AccessControlProvider}}, 
the defect means that the decision is denied even through the rule at the 
Broker ought to allow it.

The defect is that {{AbstractConfiguredObject#getAccessControl}} has two, 
conflicting, roles.

# The method is used by {{AbstractConfiguredObject#authorise()}} method to get 
the in-force AccessControl object that should be used to make an access 
decision for this configured object.
# In Broker and VirtualHost method #updateAccessControl relies the method to 
retrieve an {{AccessControl}} object from the AccessControlProvider.  To allow 
for this, AccessControlProvider override #getAccessControl to return the local 
rules.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to