Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:54:12 -0600, Jeffrey P Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/02 9:56 AM, Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If folks still want OrderedFolder (or, at least ordering capability) in the core I'm still willing to help with that. For add-to-the-core functionality, I'll vote +0.5. I wouldn't mind seeing it in the core, but I also like the idea someone mentioned of a sort of expansion pack of other good products that was well maintained alongside each core release. I agree with both of these two points that Jeffrey made. It is a sore omission from the core, but I cant see any place to hook the user interface that doesnt amount to bloat for many folders that dont need. Does it make sense to include an ObjectManager.manage_reorderItems method in the core, but leave the user interface to expansion pack products ? Toby Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Anthony Baxter wrote: deliberately-trolling-for-ChrisW-ly yrs, :-P Chris - stay in the stone age, I hear they have fire there ;-) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Chris - stay in the stone age, I hear they have fire there ;-) mmm. fre pretty. Page Templates burn, don't dey. Be a shame if somefing was to happen to your nice shiny website. Anthony, who might have been spending too long in the bad places of SQL. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Anthony Baxter wrote: Anthony, who might have been spending too long in the bad places of SQL. Maybe getting hooked back on the PHP too? I saw ya, that dodgy bloke in the street, money changing hands... *grinz* Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
At 17.04.2002 10:57 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote: From the Zen of Python: Explicit is better than implicit. We've been trying hard to adopt this bit of Zen. If you write REQUEST.set, you can look at it and easily see what is happening. Same with SESSION.set. If you're looking at dtml-set... as a newbie to Zope, your first thought is probably where exactly is this being set?. Who decided that REQUEST was a better place to implicitly set the variable? Why not the SESSION? Agreed, in this light the set tag turns into a source of confusion. How about a dtml-requestset, dtml-sessionset pair then? ;-) ;-) ducking Stefan PS: Only half joking as the dtml-set syntax is sweet, especially 'optional'... PPS: I know ZPT ;-) -- BLOWFISH n. - Preference for beef ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
--On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:48:12 AM -0400 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've already learned the hard way that the existing SiteRoots and VirtualHostMonsters etc. confuse people. This is partly due to under-documentation, but it is also partly because of the here, we'll give you several ways to do it! approach. True, but... If there are strong reasons for it to be in the core, then I suspect it would need to be sufficient to be the official VH solution and we'd want to deprecate the existing things. That means that it will need to be well documented, and we'll need to produce the needed deprecation docs, transition guides, etc. Replacing VirtualHostMonster with VirtualHostFolder (via deprecation, etc.) might be a good decision but please remember those of us who need to use the SiteRoot/access rule combo to do more than can be done with the higher level tools. SiteRoots and access rules are primitives that can not be replaced by higher level simple tools. Dan Pierson ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Lennart Regebro wrote: Yup. Therefore I think that the host monster shouldn't be included. VHF should supercede it. If backwards compatibility is desired, add warning messages for usage and remove the VHM from the add box, but continue to include it in the code. :-) Just as a passing comment from an extensive user of the normal virtual host monster: What you're suggesting sux badly, please leave it as it is! cheers, Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On 4/17/02 9:56 AM, Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 17 April 2002 11:48 am, Brian Lloyd wrote: Ok :) As far as vetting virtual host folder, my concerns boil down to: a. dependency / requirement for ordered folder b. having yet another virtual host thing in the core will confuse people ... Hey Brian. Thanks for your response. All points understood and appreciated. And I guess, then, that I'll choose not to make that commitment, since I'm looking forward to Zope3 these days anyway. If folks still want OrderedFolder (or, at least ordering capability) in the core I'm still willing to help with that. I'm a little surprised this hasn't come up for inclusion earlier. When showing a site to some top-management folk in a previous life, the question that came up most often was can we organize those links on the side so that blablabla is first?. One person would ask it, I'd respond with the hmmm, not easily - at least, not in time for our deployment date. Then the next person would come in late to the meeting, ask the same question, we'd laugh and tell them the scenario - to make admin easy, it's just listing the documents in that folder that are public, using the API's already available!. They'd go OK. The tour continued. Another straggler comes in, the loop repeated itself... :). For add-to-the-core functionality, I'll vote +0.5. I wouldn't mind seeing it in the core, but I also like the idea someone mentioned of a sort of expansion pack of other good products that was well maintained alongside each core release. -- Jeffrey P Shell www.cuemedia.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Brian Lloyd wrote We've been trying hard to adopt this bit of Zen. If you write REQUEST.set, you can look at it and easily see what is happening. Same with SESSION.set. The other reason why I made SESSION all shouty-caps in SQLSession[*] is to make it _very_ obvious when it's being used. Storing stuff in a session is often one of the critical bits of a web request, so it's important to me that it be clear and easy to see this. Anthony [*] I assume the standard Zope session stuff has adopted the SESSION convention now? it wasn't in CST -- Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's never too late to have a happy childhood. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Toby Dickenson wrote Do you remember what we had to type to achieve the equivalent of dtml-let, before dtml-let was introduced? That *was* horrible. gee, I dunno... dtml-with _.namespace(name='foo') /dtml-with has a sort of charm to it. sheesh, it's still not as ugly as ZPT. deliberately-trolling-for-ChrisW-ly yrs, Anthony -- Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's never too late to have a happy childhood. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Lennart Regebro wrote: There is an alternative, and that is to clean up the enhanced enhanced virtual host monster we at Torped have done. It's based on sfm@imemes enhanced VHM and just like VHF is makes it possible to have standalone virtual hosting without strange apache magic. We added an API to translate virtual to physical paths and back. Just so you know, a limited version of the imeme enhancements is in the Zope 2.5 VHM, and there is a standard REQUEST API consisting of physicalPathToVirtualPath, physicalPathToURL, and physicalPathFromURL. Cheers, Evan @ 4-am ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals and get to a final plan. I didn't get much (any?) response :( I am, as the author of the dtml-set tag, of course willing to commit to the implementation of this tag for 2.6 How about 'vetted' - It's set to N, when will I know if I should start coding? Ivo - I don't have a problem with the spelling of this. I _do_ have a problem with the fact that it (your existing release) actually stores the variable in REQUEST. If it were to store them somewhere more appropriate in the DTML namespace stack, I'd be happy to OK it. We'd also need someone to commit to providing the extra docs for the help system and the dtml reference section of the online Zope book. Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On Tuesday 16 April 2002 03:44 pm, Brian Lloyd wrote: ...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals and get to a final plan. I didn't get much (any?) response :( By the way, Brian, if I can with the remaining amount of time left, I'll do the work I volunteered to do. However, perhaps I speak for others in that I look to you and ZC for leadership as to *whether* I should do the work. I simply don't know how to vet the list, and I feel like you guys are the leaders. I offered to help, and I meant it, but I feel you guys are the leaders for this, particularly for a release, for what seems to be obvious reasons. So, at least to go back to basics and give you a practical answer to your question of ancient history, I have no idea how to vet the list. If it is vetted and I am called on to do some work, then I'm happy to do it if my schedule still permits it by the time the decision is made. This seems like another community initiative that fizzled: at least in my part that is so because I felt you guys should lead this, but I never got around to telling you so. So, sorry. :-( But better late than never, perhaps. Maybe other folks disagree. Thanks. Gary ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:47:49 -0400 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals and get to a final plan. I didn't get much (any?) response :( Hello Brian, just to give some feedback and ask for guidance with the further process. My college, Nils Kassube, has implemented the proposed features, regarding an enhanced MailHost, namely the usage of timeoutsocket in the SMTP-module and the archiving of outgoing mails. We also asked the programmer of timeoutsocket for permission, although the module has a BSD-license. He has no problem with the incorporation of the module into the Zope2 code base. Our current plan is to upload a patch to the collector, so other people, specifically people with a server setup under windows can test this and to send a note to Zope-Dev seeking for feedback. I have checkin privileges and also signed the the necessary papers, so later I can integrate the patch into the code base. Would it be enough to put a documentation in the proposal wiki and is the proposal sufficient? Should we take other actions? We would like to have this incorporated. Please take this mail as a commitment notification :-). Thanks for any answers, with regards, __Janko Hauser -- i.A. Dr. Janko Hauser Software Engineering c o m . u n i t G m b H online-schmiede seit 1994 http://www.comunit.de/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Eiffestr. 598 20537 Hamburg | Germany Fon 040 | 21 11 05 25 Fax 040 | 21 11 05 26 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:47:49PM -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote: ...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals and get to a final plan. I didn't get much (any?) response :( I am, as the author of the dtml-set tag, of course willing to commit to the implementation of this tag for 2.6 How about 'vetted' - It's set to N, when will I know if I should start coding? Cheers Ivo -- Drs. I.R. van der Wijk -=- Brouwersgracht 132 Amaze Internet Services V.O.F. 1013 HA Amsterdam, NL -=- Tel: +31-20-4688336 Linux/Web/Zope/SQL/MMBase Fax: +31-20-4688337 Network Solutions Web: http://www.amaze.nl/Consultancy Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:16:35 -0400, Jim Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip
address like naked ZServers can do,
to
if request.has_key('HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'):
addr=request['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR']
elif request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
There are lots of things that use REMOTE_ADDR, and I guess they should
*all* use the proxy supplied address rather than the address of the
proxy. It makes sense to me that we should *replace* REMOTE_ADDR with
HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR at the earliest opportunity. (and create a
X_FORWARDED_BY)
Have you considered this approach?
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:59:38 +0200, Oliver Bleutgen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this IMO makes spoofing against a naked
ZServer a childs play.
Thats correct for a naked ZServer, or if behind a proxy which does not
sanitize the X-FORWARDED-FOR header. However it is safe if the request
comes from the right kind of proxy.
I think we need a new command line option to specify a list of IP
addresses which are trusted to run 'the right kind of proxy'. Zope
should only trust the X-FORWARDED-FOR header if the remote address is
one of its trusted proxies.
Pseudocode for handling this would be:
if request['REMOTE_ADDR'] in our_trusted_front_end_proxies:
request['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_BY'] = request['REMOTE_ADDR']
request['REMOTE_ADDR'] = request['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR']
Toby Dickenson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
The idea is to allow user to specify several points of presence (pop) for an object. Does this break security? Probably yes, but in what case? If an object from higly secure envionment appeared somewhere in Anonymous zone, what then? Yes, Anonymous is able to alter object. But there was reason for that! Maybe - but maybe you just made the link without realizing the effect on security. That is one of the biggest conceptual problems here. Security behavior has to be as simple and understandable as possible for it to be useful. If people don't feel like they understand it, they will always have a nagging fear that they are vulnerable - and they will probably be right. One could argue that we are already pushing the boundaries with the current security implementation, which is why the bar is so high for adding things to the core that potentially make things more complex yet. Comparing it to Unix hard links is fine, but Unix doesn't use Acquisition to handle security, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples :) We need to spell out the exact semantics (*especially* wrt security, but also in terms of its effect on ZODB identity semantics, effects on undo, etc.) Ok. I am not too well in English but I'll try to do my best. If it is not hard for you give several words of explanation of ZODB identity semantics and effects on undo, not everything is clear for me. Undo uses the place of an object as part of the criteria for deciding whether you can undo changes to it. If the meaning of place changes, undo behavior is likely to change. To use your earlier example, now Anonymous users might be able to undo changes made by a manager (in a different place on the same object). Is this acceptable? I don't know, but before we think about allowing changes like this into the core, the differences in behavior need to be spelled out in detail with specific examples. Likewise with ZODB. What effects would links have on cache behavior (which are based on persistent identity)? On packing behavior? Why we are not willing to allow such scenario? AFAIK there was and are a lot of concernes refarding soft- and hardlinks in /tmp folder, with sticky bit, etc... But they are usually solved with different means. Yes, Zope and ZODB is much more complex. But why we have to limit ourselves because something is difficult. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't do something because it is difficult - just that in order to make changes like this we need to elaborate and understand all of the details and have a workable answer for all of the problems. Why not mark the feature as experimental (red button, a lot of warnings, for instance) and make it available to SuperManager only ;) Because that's the textbook case for making it a Product :) We shouldn't be putting things in the core that come with flashing red warnings and can only be used by superusers. What is wrong with leaving this as an add-on product? Why does it _need_ to be a part of the core at all? Useful products are useful, whether or not they come with Zope, and there are plenty of very useful products that don't come built in. Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:30:56 +0300, Myroslav Opyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Anonymous able to get out of the shared object to secure environment? User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope /Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects outside that folder, thanks to aq_inContextOf Can he create links to objects outside that folder? Links would be pretty useless if not. A common use case would be to create a link /XFolder/banner.gif to /stock_images/banners/mono.gif (for example). However if that is allowed, he now has management rights over that image object. I dont see how 'hard links' can possibly avoid this problem. Toby Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
At 01:30 10-04-2002 +0300, Myroslav Opyr wrote: Ok. Let's find out what we have and what we want. First of all we have strict hierarchy in ZODB where each object appears only once in the tree. Thus to access to an object it is only one way from root down to an object through containers. The idea is to allow user to specify several points of presence (pop) for an object. Precisely. My first hack solves this and I've been using it OK in production sites. But I didnt like the fact that an object point of presence in the Zope tree was identical in every instance. That leads to confusion. My second hack creates a ProxyObject class thus allowing for a different metatype and a different icon. This reduces confusion. And you can also provide a management tab with links to the original object point of presence. I tried using Python 2.1 Proxy classes but Acquisition wasnt proxiable... C U! -- MV ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
At 10:06 10-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote: What is wrong with leaving this as an add-on product? Why does it _need_ to be a part of the core at all? Useful products are useful, whether or not they come with Zope, and there are plenty of very useful products that don't come built in. I totally agree. Thats what I previously thought was the case: that your earlier comments were very much towards the links stuff being Vetted and that it should be released as a patch/product. C U! -- MV ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
At 15:12 10-04-2002 +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote: User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope /Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects outside that folder, thanks to aq_inContextOf Can he create links to objects outside that folder? No, he cant. To create a link (my hack...) you first need to obtain the object reference (moniker) with a Copy operation so that you can then do a Paste Ref. operation. Links would be pretty useless if not. No they wouldnt. A common use case would be to create a link /XFolder/banner.gif to /stock_images/banners/mono.gif (for example). However if that is allowed, he now has management rights over that image object. I dont see how 'hard links' can possibly avoid this problem. Right. But they would be useful to put an image in /Xfolder/images/ and then be able to paste links to it into /Xfolder/layout1/ and /Xfolder/layout2/ and /Xfolder/Development without the need to create multiples instances of the same image or without coding multiple requests for that object. C U! -- MV ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR
Code for this is pretty simple:
modify 2 files, ZServer/medusa/http_server.py and
lib/python/AccessControl/User.py
1. To put the proxy-passed ip address in the zserver log,
Around line 269 in ZServer/medusa/http_server.py, add a method
http_request::client_ip
def client_ip(self):
proxy_client = self.get_header('x-forwarded-for')
if proxy_client:
return proxy_client
else:
return self.channel.addr[0]
Then around line 294, change the statement that does logging to use the
method.
self.channel.server.logger.log (
self.client_ip(),
' - %s [%s] %s %d %d %s %s\n' % (
name,
...
2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip
address like naked ZServers can do,
In lib/python/AccessControl/User.py, around line 1116,
change
if request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
to
if request.has_key('HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'):
addr=request['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR']
elif request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
I do not believe this does anything to authentication that is not
possible now regarding spoofed ip addresses, so probably not a major
security headache.
Major possible problem I can think of: I do not use ZEO, and have no
idea what these changes might do there. I do not have check-in
privileges, and probably should not until I get a better clue of how cvs
works :).
Anyway, here is the code FWIW. Apologies that it is not a patch per se.
Now looking for a more clueful sponsor to take it from here to check-in
(after vetting?)
-- Jim Washington
Brian Lloyd wrote:
...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up
some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals
and get to a final plan. I didn't get much (any?) response :(
For a couple of things that were ready to go and fairly non
controversial (like Toby's unicode work), I put on the BDFL
hat and said merge it!.
But there are still a lot of things on the proposed features
that are undone, and some that are controversial enough that
we need to get to closure on them.
I'll volunteer to convert the current proposed feature list
into a draft plan, where the conversion boils down to
adding some columns to the table:
Proposal - name and link to the proposal
Resources - who is working on it
Committed - Y/N whether the volunteers have committed to have
the implementation and docs done by the first week
in June. I'll fill in what I know has been committed
to, people can update this (or let me know and I'll
do it), and anything that doesn't get a 'Y' in a
reasonably short time will be put in the cooler.
Vetted - Y / N whether the community and / or the relevant BDFLs
have come to some agreement on whether it *should* be
done. The list of items without a 'Y' will be our next
order of business. Getting to closure on those either
via the list, IRC, or whatever is the main block on the
critical path.
Status - Complete or incomplete
I've taken a first stab at this. I've set the committed to 'Y'
for those things that I know I've gotten commitments for. For
those set to 'N', please let me know if you can commit to the
date (or change it yourself in the wiki).
The updated plan is at:
http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.6/ProposedFeatures
Once we get the commitments up to date, we can start wrangling
with the vetting...
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Jim Washington wrote:
2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip
address like naked ZServers can do,
In lib/python/AccessControl/User.py, around line 1116,
change
if request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
to
if request.has_key('HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'):
addr=request['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR']
elif request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
I do not believe this does anything to authentication that is not
possible now regarding spoofed ip addresses, so probably not a major
security headache.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this IMO makes spoofing against a naked
ZServer a childs play. It's just adding a custom header to the request.
I also doubt that every reverse proxy overwrites this header, so
zservers behind a proxy might also be hit.
TCP spoofing OTOH is far more complicated, if (does it?) zope turns off
the source routing option when replying, if present. IMO something like
cracking a router or predicting sequence numbers is another level from
adding a custom http-header.
cheers,
oliver
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 06:59:38PM +0200, Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Jim Washington wrote:
2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip
address like naked ZServers can do,
In lib/python/AccessControl/User.py, around line 1116,
change
if request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
to
if request.has_key('HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'):
addr=request['HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR']
elif request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR']
I do not believe this does anything to authentication that is not
possible now regarding spoofed ip addresses, so probably not a major
security headache.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this IMO makes spoofing against a naked
ZServer a childs play. It's just adding a custom header to the request.
I also doubt that every reverse proxy overwrites this header, so
zservers behind a proxy might also be hit.
Note: this is using another web server to front for zope. It turns out
to be fairly safe -- I have used a variant for quite a while and did
quite a bit of testing. For short hand, I am going to call the other web
server apache. Apache presumably uses something like getpeername to
fill in its idea of HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR or REMOTE_ADDR. If the remote
user attempts to spoof it (by using hidden variables, or other HTTP
based techniques), the Zope server interprets this is a list, rather
than the expected string. This is easy to detect, and in fact, if you
fail to handle it, you will probably simply error out.
If the attacker is using TCP spoofing, there is really not much you can
do at an application level.
On the other hand, I am now conviced that this is not an intelligent
thing to do, not even for presentation. You already have Apache in
front, so why not use rewriting rules to make the URL distinguishable.
In this way, you can use one of the BASE or URL variables to determine
how the person got in. This gives you pretty much the same level of
control (especially if you are worried only about internal/external) as
using IP addresses, without modifying either Zope or Apache.
Jim Penny
TCP spoofing OTOH is far more complicated, if (does it?) zope turns off
the source routing option when replying, if present. IMO something like
cracking a router or predicting sequence numbers is another level from
adding a custom http-header.
cheers,
oliver
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...
Brian Lloyd wrote: Both me and Myroslav Opyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] are quite commited to do the proposed Object Links/References. Although from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that it was one of the controversial enough to be a Vetted item :-) Anyways I'm commited to do it. I do agree with your argument about link semantics but, at least for me, a link/reference is a link, and the semantics are perfectly defined i.e its not a RedirectObject. As in Unix, a hard link has different semantics from a soft link. I'm thinking of the hard link semantics. I guess that what I was getting at is that the semantics for this need to be spelled out in detail so that we can make sure that they make sense before something like this goes in. Ok. Let's find out what we have and what we want. First of all we have strict hierarchy in ZODB where each object appears only once in the tree. Thus to access to an object it is only one way from root down to an object through containers. All security in Zope is based on that pattern. I am omitting Acquisition machinery to simplify (and I do not see it clearly in the context here). The idea is to allow user to specify several points of presence (pop) for an object. Does this break security? Probably yes, but in what case? If an object from higly secure envionment appeared somewhere in Anonymous zone, what then? Yes, Anonymous is able to alter object. But there was reason for that! Is Anonymous able to get out of the shared object to secure environment? No in no simple way. Sure if an object was DTML and Anonymous placed trojan horse in the script and someone from secure environment executed the code then we run in a problem. But we can warn user! And we have a lot of Restricted... techniques, maybe one can be applied here? Comparing it to Unix hard links is fine, but Unix doesn't use Acquisition to handle security, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples :) We need to spell out the exact semantics (*especially* wrt security, but also in terms of its effect on ZODB identity semantics, effects on undo, etc.) Ok. I am not too well in English but I'll try to do my best. If it is not hard for you give several words of explanation of ZODB identity semantics and effects on undo, not everything is clear for me. Security in particular is very concerned with *containment* path (rather than just acquisition path) in order to prevent stealing access through acquisition wrappers. Having objects with more than one place may introduce much the same problem, so we'll need to write up in detail the effects on the security machinery or its application to domain objects (or if the security machinery does not need to change, we need to spell out why). Why we are not willing to allow such scenario? AFAIK there was and are a lot of concernes refarding soft- and hardlinks in /tmp folder, with sticky bit, etc... But they are usually solved with different means. Yes, Zope and ZODB is much more complex. But why we have to limit ourselves because something is difficult. Why not mark the feature as experimental (red button, a lot of warnings, for instance) and make it available to SuperManager only ;) I'd be glad to get feedback, thanks, Myroslav -- Myroslav Opyr zope.net.ua http://zope.net.ua/ ° Ukrainian Zope Hosting e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: +380 50.3174578 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
