Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [IS 6.0.0] [User Portal] Challenge Questions in Self sign-up page of user portal

Hi Nuwan, On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Nuwan Dias wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Isura Karunaratne > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In my opinion, admin defined security questions are more secure than >> user-defined security questions in

Re: [Architecture] Introducing interface to get widget configuration files in Dashboard Component

Hi, Thanks for the update. We will proceed with the implementation. Thanks, Nisala On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Sriskandarajah Suhothayan wrote: > Yes, +1 for the approach. Typically CEP is providing the dashboard its own > store via the OSGi service. > > Regards > Suho >

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [IS 6.0.0] [User Portal] Challenge Questions in Self sign-up page of user portal

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Isura Karunaratne wrote: > Hi, > > In my opinion, admin defined security questions are more secure than > user-defined security questions in general. Because some users may define > simple questions and answers which attackers can guess easily. >

Re: [Architecture] Dashboard Component Permission Model

Hi Johann/Napagoda, KasunG is currently working on removing user.core components from the carbon-security repo. So we will have carbon-security m3 release before the IS 6.0.0 m1 release. Thanks, Thanuja On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Johann Nallathamby wrote: > > > On Mon,

Re: [Architecture] Dashboard Component Permission Model

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Thanuja Jayasinghe wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:34 PM, SajithAR Ariyarathna > wrote: > >> Currently, we are in the process of refactoring the carbon-security >>> source and hope to release a 1.0.0-m3 soon. With this

Re: [Architecture] Dashboard Component Permission Model

HI Thanuja, When are you guys expecting to release carbon-security 1.0.0-m3? Regards, Chandana On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Thanuja Jayasinghe wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:34 PM, SajithAR Ariyarathna > wrote: > >> Currently, we are in the

Re: [Architecture] [Identity Server] Creating a server configuration Identity.yaml vs component wise yaml files and Reading the server configurations

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Johann Nallathamby wrote: > Hi Danushka, > > Did you see [1]? The thread talks about a single config file for the most > commonly changed config files. However the thread doesn't seem to have a > conclusion. > > @Kernel Team, > Is this something

Re: [Architecture] [APIM] CLI tool for API Manager - API export and import

Hi Sajith, This CLI should also captured following scenario as well. 1. Developer develop API using local API editor. 2. API local editor will generate folder structure containing all the artifacts related to API 3. He/She also capable of sharing these folder via git (or any source

Re: [Architecture] [APIM] [C5] Rest API Support for Importing and Exporting APIs between Multiple Environments

Hi, it should be an optional parameter to define the “creator” of an API during import (on behalf of feature). This is of importance especially when importing is done by a technical user. If the “creator” user is not available in the import environment the import operation will fail. The log

Re: [Architecture] Non OSGI access to secure vault component

Hi, There are two functionalities can be identified in the secure vault loading. 1. Reading the secure-vault.yaml and initializing instance variables from values in file. 2. Initialising the master key reader secret repository and load secrets to secret repository. According to the desgin these

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [Identity Server] Creating a server configuration Identity.yaml vs component wise yaml files and Reading the server configurations

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Ruwan Abeykoon wrote: > Hi All, > @Johann > I think security questions/account recovery options should not be treated > as server-configurations. I would rather consider them as the runtime data > much like the SP/IdP data. Hence single server

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [Identity Server] Creating a server configuration Identity.yaml vs component wise yaml files and Reading the server configurations

Hi All, @Johann I think security questions/account recovery options should not be treated as server-configurations. I would rather consider them as the runtime data much like the SP/IdP data. Hence single server config does not apply for this case IMO. >>Each component must pass its own

Re: [Architecture] [Identity Server] Creating a server configuration Identity.yaml vs component wise yaml files and Reading the server configurations

Johan Problem with reading from seperate places is like this. How we have read yaml files is using snakeyaml library, we create a class with parameters as same name as yaml file properties. And we pass this class and we retrieve object of that mapping bean. So how should we achieve that? One idea

Re: [Architecture] [Identity Server] Creating a server configuration Identity.yaml vs component wise yaml files and Reading the server configurations

Hi Danushka, Did you see [1]? The thread talks about a single config file for the most commonly changed config files. However the thread doesn't seem to have a conclusion. @Kernel Team, Is this something we have completed implementing? If so can you share some latest details of how we should be

[Architecture] [Identity Server] Creating a server configuration Identity.yaml vs component wise yaml files and Reading the server configurations

Hi All We are currently working on setting challenge questions feature for IS 6.0.0-M1. We need some configurations specific to security questions / account recovery section. In C4 based products it was in identity.xml which is the server configuration. In C5 code we dont have created a such file.