I'll just disable that execution and your enforcer is defanged !

On Monday, 10 March 2014, Christian Willman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> No biggie for us. We use the Maven enforcer plugin to ban antrun and exec.
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> On Monday, March 10, 2014 7:56:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>> Like that's going to stop them...
>>
>>       <plugin>
>>         <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
>>         <artifactId>exec-maven-plugin</artifactId>
>>         <version>1.2.1</version>
>>         <executions>
>>           <execution>
>>             <goals>
>>               <goal>exec</goal>
>>             </goals>
>>             <configuration>
>>               <executable>/bin/rm</executable>
>>               <workingDirectory>/</workingDirectory>
>>               <arguments>
>>                 <argument>-rf</argument>
>>                 <argument>/</argument>
>>               </arguments>
>>             </configuration>
>>           </execution>
>>         </executions>
>>       </plugin>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 March 2014 00:39, Christian Willman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately it is not possible. A common suggestion is to template out
>>> your specific job type, but even then, there is no authorization strategy
>>> to prevent users from simply creating a new FreestyleBuild with a console
>>> build step.
>>>
>>> Our organization has the same requirements -- we cannot allow untrusted
>>> developers to run arbitrary shell commands. We've solved this by switching
>>> to an external templating system (which I wrote in-house). Now developers
>>> cannot create or modify *any* jobs directly through the Jenkins UI.
>>> This works for us because 99% of our Java projects can be built with a
>>> simple "mvn clean deploy". The oddball jobs are isolated to a
>>> heavily-audited Jenkins instance.
>>>
>>> Another potential solution is to implement your own job types and then
>>> write a custom authorization strategy which revokes access to the built-in
>>> job types. But this is not maintainable and will probably require a
>>> dedicated admin to babysit the implementation for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> I've searched through the source and couldn't figure out any other
>>> implementations which don't require modifications to the Jenkins core.
>>> Unfortunately nobody (including Cloudbees) seems interested in this use
>>> case right now.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Jenkins Users" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Jenkins Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to 
> [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jenkinsci-users%[email protected]');>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
Sent from my phone

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to