Re: basic security review

2007-11-30 Thread Vamsavardhana Reddy
I think I have touched upon everything in the code base that seems to be a LoginModule implementation. Only thing that remains w.r.t LoginModules is the moving of NamedUPCredentialLoginModule to o.a.g.s.realm.providers. (I have not bothered about changing UPCredentialLoginModule as I have marked

Re: basic security review

2007-11-05 Thread David Jencks
On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: Yes, that's a good idea. Also, excellent work with reviewing the LoginModules and adding tests!!! I just added two new LoginModules to look at. I'm particularly concerned about CertificateChainLoginModule since it always returns true in its login(

Re: basic security review

2007-11-02 Thread Jarek Gawor
Folks, We added a bunch of tests in the last few days but we still need some help identifying and reviewing the components. Please see the wiki page ( http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Security+Review) for latest updates. Thanks, Jarek On 10/29/07, Jarek Gawor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: basic security review

2007-11-01 Thread Jarek Gawor
Yes, that's a good idea. Also, excellent work with reviewing the LoginModules and adding tests!!! I just added two new LoginModules to look at. I'm particularly concerned about CertificateChainLoginModule since it always returns true in its login() function. But I'm not exactly sure how this is be

Re: basic security review

2007-10-30 Thread Vamsavardhana Reddy
I think we should create JIRAs for each review activity that results in code changes and update the wiki with the JIRA number. This way we will be able to track the progress on each activity in one central place. Also, add important points from this discussion thread to the wiki too. ++Vamsi On

Re: basic security review

2007-10-30 Thread Vamsavardhana Reddy
Thanks Jarek and Prasad for getting the ball rolling. ++Vamsi On 10/30/07, Prasad Kashyap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree. Our strategy to make Geronimo secure should include an > elaborate set of unit testcases, a rich set of tests in the > security-testsuite in our testsuite framework,

Re: basic security review

2007-10-30 Thread Prasad Kashyap
I agree. Our strategy to make Geronimo secure should include an elaborate set of unit testcases, a rich set of tests in the security-testsuite in our testsuite framework, along with peer review of code in components that are potential security risks. We should aim to have imbricate or maybe even

basic security review

2007-10-29 Thread Jarek Gawor
A few security problems were discovered in Geronimo in the last few months and weeks. Most of them were Geronimo-specific except one. Therefore, I think we should spend a little bit of our time to review our code and check for potential security problems. As the first step, I think we should identi