Re: Safe UserName characters

2005-08-23 Thread Dave Johnson

Yes, this is still an open issue in 2.0. It's on my list.

Do we have a proposed solution?

- Dave


On Aug 21, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Elias Torres wrote:


BTW, I don't think I have double-checked this, but handle in create
weblog form does not seem to restrict any characters (as found in
Roller_2.0 branch). Therefore, I guess we need to resolve this so we
are not being inconsistent. Sorry for being such a pest on this.

Elias

On 8/16/05, Lance Lavandowska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Due to Jaap's  
http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JaapVanDerMolen
work  
http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=InstallationGuide#ref- 
InstallationGuide-6

 websafe shouldn't be necessary.  But Anil indicated there were some
issues with Tomcat not supporting non-ISO-8859-1 usernames.

Lance

On 8/16/05, Dave Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What we really need is a algorithm for determining if a username (or  
in

2.0 a webloghandle) is safe to use in a URL. Any pointers?

- Dave








Re: Safe UserName characters

2005-08-23 Thread Allen Gilliland
I know Elias had proposed adding a config property which is essentially a regex 
that would be used to determine if a username is okay.  then site admins can 
alter that property as desired if they want to.

Personally, I have mixed emotions about the prospect of letting app owners 
alter the username and password restrictions.  I can see that it would be a 
nice feature, but at the same time it really shouldn't be all that necessary as 
long as we pick a good standard.

Anyone know of any open standards for username character restrictions?  Elias 
is correct that we should at least open up the username restrictions to allow 
for '@' and '.' characters so that email addresses are valid.

-- Allen


On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 06:31, Dave Johnson wrote:
 Yes, this is still an open issue in 2.0. It's on my list.
 
 Do we have a proposed solution?
 
 - Dave
 
 
 On Aug 21, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Elias Torres wrote:
 
  BTW, I don't think I have double-checked this, but handle in create
  weblog form does not seem to restrict any characters (as found in
  Roller_2.0 branch). Therefore, I guess we need to resolve this so we
  are not being inconsistent. Sorry for being such a pest on this.
 
  Elias
 
  On 8/16/05, Lance Lavandowska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Due to Jaap's  
  http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JaapVanDerMolen
  work  
  http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=InstallationGuide#ref-
  InstallationGuide-6
   websafe shouldn't be necessary.  But Anil indicated there were some
  issues with Tomcat not supporting non-ISO-8859-1 usernames.
 
  Lance
 
  On 8/16/05, Dave Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  What we really need is a algorithm for determining if a username (or  
  in
  2.0 a webloghandle) is safe to use in a URL. Any pointers?
 
  - Dave
 
 
 



Re: Safe UserName characters

2005-08-23 Thread Matt Raible
On 8/23/05, Allen Gilliland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I know Elias had proposed adding a config property which is essentially a 
 regex that would be used to determine if a username is okay.  then site 
 admins can alter that property as desired if they want to.
 
 Personally, I have mixed emotions about the prospect of letting app owners 
 alter the username and password restrictions.  I can see that it would be a 
 nice feature, but at the same time it really shouldn't be all that necessary 
 as long as we pick a good standard.
 
 Anyone know of any open standards for username character restrictions?  Elias 
 is correct that we should at least open up the username restrictions to allow 
 for '@' and '.' characters so that email addresses are valid.

I don't know if these characters are currently prevented, unless it
was recently added.  When we first installed Roller at SourceBeat, we
used e-mail addresses for usernames.

Matt

 
 -- Allen
 
 
 On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 06:31, Dave Johnson wrote:
  Yes, this is still an open issue in 2.0. It's on my list.
 
  Do we have a proposed solution?
 
  - Dave
 
 
  On Aug 21, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Elias Torres wrote:
 
   BTW, I don't think I have double-checked this, but handle in create
   weblog form does not seem to restrict any characters (as found in
   Roller_2.0 branch). Therefore, I guess we need to resolve this so we
   are not being inconsistent. Sorry for being such a pest on this.
  
   Elias
  
   On 8/16/05, Lance Lavandowska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Due to Jaap's
   http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JaapVanDerMolen
   work
   http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=InstallationGuide#ref-
   InstallationGuide-6
websafe shouldn't be necessary.  But Anil indicated there were some
   issues with Tomcat not supporting non-ISO-8859-1 usernames.
  
   Lance
  
   On 8/16/05, Dave Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   What we really need is a algorithm for determining if a username (or
   in
   2.0 a webloghandle) is safe to use in a URL. Any pointers?
  
   - Dave
  
  
 
 



RE: Safe UserName characters

2005-08-16 Thread Kolano, Kenneth M.
Wouldn't the string of allowed characters be gigantic?

There are 95,156 characters in Unicode 3.2, though I'm unsure how many would
be needed on an allowed characters list. Perhaps for limited situations,
like (A-Z,-,@), this might work.

Kenneth M. Kolano
Technology Architecture  Innovation
908-423-4241
WS1B-51B


-Original Message-
From: Elias Torres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:19 PM
To: roller-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Safe UserName characters


Sounds good to me. If the route will be to allow characters on a
configurable basis then I think it makes more sense to place the
config option in the ApplicationResources.properties.

Thanks!

Elias

On 8/16/05, Lance Lavandowska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 How about using ApplicationResources.properties to store the string of
 allowed characters?  This will allow you to customize as you wish for
 the moment (your suggested string should not pose a problem) and will
 allow languages other than English to specify any additional
 characters they like.
 
 I don't know how this will interact with the I18N/authentication
 problem Anil mentions, but wouldn't this allow those with expertize in
 their a particular language (and how it interacts with Http/Tomcat)
 make the decision?
 
 Lance
 
 On 8/16/05, Elias Torres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Any decision on this need I have regarding safe characters? Did you
  decide whether you would include the ability to specify allowed
  characters (snippet included by me) or to remove the restriction on
  some characters because of your i18n work on Roller?
 
  We are trying to decide if we use Roller again inside for IBM weblogs,
  but I would not like to fork the code again and instead be using the
  latest releases from SVN. The more flexible you are with us, the
  easier our decision will be and less changes we'll have to maintain
  separate from the main repository.
 
  I'll definitely have more requests coming if we decide to go with
Roller.
 
  Elias
 
  On 8/9/05, Anil Gangolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   A bit of caution, oddly related to the authentication mechanism topic.
   One of the stopping points has been problems in the form
authentication
   chain, currently used by Roller.  Tomcat forces ISO-8859-1 for this.
  
   (There's a bug filed about it but I can't quote the number because I
   can't seem to get to our Jira site right now.  The bug says something
   about character corruption when going through login; it's high on the
   importance list, assigned to Dave with lots of comments from me
while
   I went through analyzing it.)
  
   We may be able to address it for Tomcat with a Valve, but not sure how
   other containers will behave.
  
   --a.
  
   Elias Torres wrote:
  
   On 8/8/05, Lance Lavandowska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
   
   I think alphanumeric was chosen because it is known websafe but
   there are obviously other characters that can safely be put in a
URL,
   such as the ones you list below.
   
   Since we are now encoding our URLs more thoroughly (for I18N
support)
   perhaps we can drop this requirement?  I haven't looked thoroughly
to
   support this question/claim.
   
   Lance
   
   
   
   That would be even better!
   
   Thanks Lance.
   
   Elias
   
   
   
   On 8/8/05, Elias Torres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
   
   Is there/should there be an option to allow other than alphanumeric
   characters in usernames other than commenting a few lines in
   UserBaseAction. At IBM we use email addresses as Roller IDs
(because
   usernames are not globally unique, except at the country level).
   
   I've written a piece of code to make this work if you are
interested.
   It uses commons-lang CharSetUtils.
   
   roller.properties
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
   UserBaseAction.java
   
   protected static String DEFAULT_ALLOWED_CHARS = A-Za-z0-9;
   
   UserBaseAction#validate()
   
   String allowed = RollerConfig.getProperty(username.allowedChars);
   if(allowed == null || allowed.trim().length() == 0) {
   allowed = DEFAULT_ALLOWED_CHARS;
   }
   
   String safe = CharSetUtils.keep(form.getUserName(), allowed);
   
   Regards,
   
   Elias
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
  
  
 






--
Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains 
information of Merck  Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New 
Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the 
United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp  Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as 
Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally 
privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named 
on this message.  If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this 
message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
it from your system.
--


Re: Safe UserName characters

2005-08-16 Thread Dave Johnson


What we really need is a algorithm for determining if a username (or in  
2.0 a webloghandle) is safe to use in a URL. Any pointers?


- Dave


On Aug 16, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Kolano, Kenneth M. wrote:


Wouldn't the string of allowed characters be gigantic?

There are 95,156 characters in Unicode 3.2, though I'm unsure how many  
would
be needed on an allowed characters list. Perhaps for limited  
situations,

like (A-Z,-,@), this might work.

Kenneth M. Kolano
Technology Architecture  Innovation
908-423-4241
WS1B-51B


-Original Message-
From: Elias Torres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:19 PM
To: roller-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Safe UserName characters


Sounds good to me. If the route will be to allow characters on a
configurable basis then I think it makes more sense to place the
config option in the ApplicationResources.properties.

Thanks!

Elias

On 8/16/05, Lance Lavandowska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

How about using ApplicationResources.properties to store the string of
allowed characters?  This will allow you to customize as you wish for
the moment (your suggested string should not pose a problem) and will
allow languages other than English to specify any additional
characters they like.

I don't know how this will interact with the I18N/authentication
problem Anil mentions, but wouldn't this allow those with expertize in
their a particular language (and how it interacts with Http/Tomcat)
make the decision?

Lance

On 8/16/05, Elias Torres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Any decision on this need I have regarding safe characters? Did you
decide whether you would include the ability to specify allowed
characters (snippet included by me) or to remove the restriction on
some characters because of your i18n work on Roller?

We are trying to decide if we use Roller again inside for IBM  
weblogs,

but I would not like to fork the code again and instead be using the
latest releases from SVN. The more flexible you are with us, the
easier our decision will be and less changes we'll have to maintain
separate from the main repository.

I'll definitely have more requests coming if we decide to go with

Roller.


Elias

On 8/9/05, Anil Gangolli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


A bit of caution, oddly related to the authentication mechanism  
topic.

One of the stopping points has been problems in the form

authentication

chain, currently used by Roller.  Tomcat forces ISO-8859-1 for this.

(There's a bug filed about it but I can't quote the number because I
can't seem to get to our Jira site right now.  The bug says  
something
about character corruption when going through login; it's high on  
the

importance list, assigned to Dave with lots of comments from me

while

I went through analyzing it.)

We may be able to address it for Tomcat with a Valve, but not sure  
how

other containers will behave.

--a.

Elias Torres wrote:


On 8/8/05, Lance Lavandowska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I think alphanumeric was chosen because it is known websafe but
there are obviously other characters that can safely be put in a

URL,

such as the ones you list below.

Since we are now encoding our URLs more thoroughly (for I18N

support)

perhaps we can drop this requirement?  I haven't looked thoroughly

to

support this question/claim.

Lance




That would be even better!

Thanks Lance.

Elias




On 8/8/05, Elias Torres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Is there/should there be an option to allow other than  
alphanumeric

characters in usernames other than commenting a few lines in
UserBaseAction. At IBM we use email addresses as Roller IDs

(because

usernames are not globally unique, except at the country level).

I've written a piece of code to make this work if you are

interested.

It uses commons-lang CharSetUtils.

roller.properties
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

UserBaseAction.java

protected static String DEFAULT_ALLOWED_CHARS = A-Za-z0-9;

UserBaseAction#validate()

String allowed =  
RollerConfig.getProperty(username.allowedChars);

if(allowed == null || allowed.trim().length() == 0) {
   allowed = DEFAULT_ALLOWED_CHARS;
}

String safe = CharSetUtils.keep(form.getUserName(), allowed);

Regards,

Elias






















--- 
---
Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains  
information of Merck  Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station,  
New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known  
outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp  Dohme or MSD  
and in Japan, as Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary  
copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the  
use of the individual or entity named on this message.  If you are not  
the intended recipient, and have received this message in error,  
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from  
your system.
--- 
---