Hey Claude, I thought someone responded to this already (sorry)

To me, this seems in line with the doc:
https://shiro.apache.org/permissions.html#missing-parts
At first glance, there are similar test cases in `WildcardPermissionTest
<https://github.com/apache/shiro/blob/master/core/src/test/java/org/apache/shiro/authz/permission/WildcardPermissionTest.java#L143>
`

Does that help clear things up? If not maybe a PR to that test class would
help clarify the point?

Thanks!
-Brian


On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:36 AM, [email protected] <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Not seeing any discussion of this and seeing no tests in the test cases
> that perform any tests of this issue.  I will open a defect and work on
> that.
>
>
> Claude
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claude Warren (Product Engineering Service)
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:52:52 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Defect in WildcardPermission evaluation?
>
>
> Currently the WildcardPermission.implies() method contains the following
> code snippet and comment.
>
>
> // If this permission has less parts than the other permission, everything
> after the number of parts contained
> // in this permission is automatically implied, so return true
>  ....
>
>
> // If this permission has more parts than the other parts, only imply it
> if all of the other parts are wildcards
>         for (; i < getParts().size(); i++) {
>             Set<String> part = getParts().get(i);
>             if (!part.contains(WILDCARD_TOKEN)) {
>                 return false;
>             }
>         }
>
>
> This means that If you have (User perms in first col, testing against
> across columns)
> {noformat}
>
>
>         A       A:*     A:B     A:B:*   A:B:C   A:B:C:*
> A       t       t       t       t       t       t
> A:*     T
>         t       t       t       t       t
> A:B     f       f       t       t       t       t
> A:B:*   f       f       T       t       t       t
> A:B:C   f       f       f       f       t       t
> A:B:C:* f       f       f       f       T       t
>
> {noformat}
>
> I think the issues are where the upper case  "T"s are.   I believe that
> those should be "F"
>
> The logic being that once a separator (:) is presented it should no longer
> match anything shorter than that.
>
> Thoughts?
> Claude
>
>
> The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
> to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and
> may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
> this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of
> this message and any attachments. WARNING: Computer viruses can be
> transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any
> attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
> for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
> www.wipro.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>

Reply via email to