Hi, On 14 September 2017 at 06:56, Alex Deparvu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Not to sound cold or uncaring, but IMO that’s a user configuration > concern, it shouldn’t be Oak’s concern. What if a user fails to put the > proper ACLs on a resource in Oak and thus allows users to access it who > shouldn’t? Isn’t that basically the same concern? > > Except there's a subtle difference here. If I understand correctly (and > feel free to point it out if that is not the case) security of the > generated url relies on 2 things: a url that is hard to guess and a ttl > that needs to be short enough to get the job done but not big enough to > cause harm if the url is made public. this is my understanding. > So the concern I raised is about the > ttl, this seems sensitive enough to warrant a discussion and probably a few > log statements for traceability. > We can do that, 1 log line per signed url issued with enough of the url to identify it later, but not enough to gather sufficient data to crack the key from the logs (theoretically). ie the last 10 chars of the signature, assume that changes frequently. Best Regards Ian
