On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:23:51 -0400 Nathaniel McCallum <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 12:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:52:43 -0400 > > Nathaniel McCallum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 17:51 +0200, Petr Vobornik wrote: > > > > On 16.9.2014 17:26, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 17:10 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > > > >> Admins need the ability to specify the token ID in the case > > > > >> of imports. However, generally, this ability is not needed. > > > > >> > > > > >> Is it possible to offload the ID generation to the ipa-uuid > > > > >> plugin? I'm not quite sure how to enable this (I think it > > > > >> involves passing a magic value?). But I'm not quite sure how > > > > >> this fits in with the IPA framework as the generated value is > > > > >> the DN. > > > > >> > > > > >> However, assuming this can be used, I propose the following. > > > > >> The token ID is removed from the UI for regular users (but > > > > >> retained for admins). We change the ACIs for token > > > > >> addition/modification to prevent regular users from > > > > >> specifying the ID in an add or mod operation. The CLI would > > > > >> retain the option to set it, but this option would only be > > > > >> usable by admins. > > > > >> > > > > >> Make sense? > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has responded to this. :) > > > > > > > > > > However, since investigating it a bit more, this approach > > > > > won't really work without further effort. Here is the problem. > > > > > > > > > > First, the UUID plugin doesn't currently support this kind of > > > > > operation. Either it needs to be modified or a new plugin > > > > > needs to be created. > > > > > > > > > > Second, the client needs to know the ID in order to generate > > > > > the token URI. If we generate the UUID inside the DS, the > > > > > UUID is unknown to the client and the URI can't be generated. > > > > > This would mean a new control. > > > > > > > > > > As I see it we have three options: > > > > > 1. Remove the option to specify the ipatokenUniqueID from the > > > > > GUI. Don't make any change in the CLI. > > > > > > > > > > ENFORCEMENT: none > > > > > EFFORT: low > > > > > > > > > > 2. Perform a server-side check for admin membership. Raise an > > > > > exception if the ipatokenUniqueID is specified and the user is > > > > > not an admin. > > > > > > > > > > ENFORCEMENT: API-level > > > > > EFFORT: medium > > > > > > > > > > 3. Modify otptoken-add to create tokens with a magical > > > > > ipatokenUniqueID value by default. An ACI would prevent normal > > > > > users from adding tokens without this magic value. > > > > > Create/modify a plugin to generate UUIDs when the magic value > > > > > is found. Send a control back to the client indicating the > > > > > real ipatokenUniqueID value. Modify otptoken-add to read this > > > > > control. > > > > > > > > > > ENFORCEMENT: DS-level > > > > > EFFORT: high > > > > > > > > > > I think my preference for now is #1. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Nathaniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to raise a question if we really want to disable this > > > > feature for normal users. Wouldn't it be better to improve error > > > > message or check if the name is taken? > > > > > > > > UUID is the value which is displayed in the Soft. Token > > > > application as name. Sure, one can rename it there to match the > > > > description in IPA but that seems quite unpleasant to me. Also > > > > user has to know that he can rename the token in FreeOTP,.... > > > > > > > > Atm the existence check might be little problematic - disclose > > > > of information which is not readable to user by default. But > > > > current state is basically it, just unfriendly. > > > > > > The existence check is impossible: users can't see tokens they > > > don't own. > > > > Why don't we simply allow user to use an arbitrary name of their > > choosing (or a random string if not specified) and then append their > > uid string to it in the UI ? > > > > I wonder if we have ACIs where the value must match a pattern > > defined by the bound user ... > > This would present a strange scenario where a token is created and > then reassigned to another user. The idea is to strip away the tail when visualizing to the user, so it wouldn't really bee seen ? Or perhaps the token can simply be renamed when assigned. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
