I don't understand what inheriting proxy roles from callers has to do
with allowing users to access protected resources above their user
folders. They seem like totally different questions to me. Could you
On 2/16/06, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>But... it's still not working for my real site. I think the issue is
> >>>this. If script1 has proxy role Manager, and script2 has view
> >>>permissions set only for Manager, then script1 can call script2, no
> >>>problem. But if script1 instead calls script3, which then calls
> >>>script2, it doesn't work unless script3 *also* has proxy role Manager.
> >>Yes, this was a deliberate change made a few major releases ago. I've
> >>never mich liked it myself for exactly the reason you describe. I wonder
> >>if anyone who knows could point out why this change was made, I'm sure
> >>the reasons were good...
> > Even if the reasons were good, it would be nice to have an option to
> > turn it on or off, even if the default is off. At the very least, it
> > would be nice if this fact were documented. (Is it somewhere and I
> > just missed it?) It surprised me very much, and it would have
> > surprised and frustrated me even more if I'd written a site which
> > worked and then later on decided to split off the functionality of
> > some private script into a secondary one, unsuspecting that it would
> > break the proxy roles setup.
> The prior behavior (allowing users to access protected resources "above"
> the domain of their user folders) was a security hole caused by a bug,
> and was never documented as allowable: correcting it was a matter for a
> rather urgent fix, as it broke the explicitly-documented model.
> The fact that folks wrote applications which relied on the hole is
> unfortunate; breaking them is better than leaving the sites built
> around the defined model vulnerable to abuse.
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -