[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16540398#comment-16540398
 ] 

Alexander Klimetschek commented on OAK-7570:
--------------------------------------------

{quote}But the path parameter also doesn't add anything useful to the API. The 
current API already allows a client to perform this check and then decide to 
proceed with requesting upload URLs. In my view, combining them in a single 
call gives a false sense of security because client code is free to use 
whatever path it wants.
{quote}

You are right, application code could do the check itself 
(session.hasPermission()). However, as we know, that isn't really done in the 
case of binaries created from InputStream today. After all, the developer will 
think "I am not persisting the session here". Yes, it can be documented, but 
experience shows this is not enough for a safe system. That's why I think it 
should be forced upon clients.

The point is, even if the client could use a different path, if they do not 
provide a path they have write access to, they will get an immediate 
AccessDeniedException. This is not possible without a path argument (today, 
without I assume bigger changes to Oaks permission model). I feel uncomfortable 
taking this important security check out until there is a clear plan for a 
better alternative with the same protection.

Having the client to provide the path in the API, but not leveraging it in the 
implementation (in the future) seems not a problem to me.

> [DirectBinaryAccess][DISCUSS] How to access HttpBlobProvider from oak-jcr
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-7570
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7570
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Technical task
>          Components: jcr
>            Reporter: Matt Ryan
>            Assignee: Matt Ryan
>            Priority: Major
>
> Open discussion related to OAK-7569:
> The [original pull request|https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/88] 
> proposes changes to oak-api, oak-segment-tar, oak-store-document, oak-core, 
> and oak-jcr as well as oak-blob-plugins, oak-blob-cloud, and oak-blob-azure.  
> Would it be possible / better to keep the changes local to the oak-blob-* 
> bundles and avoid making changes throughout the stack?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to