Hi Daan, I see your point in not bothering API implementers when it comes to checking or setting the flag. (In my implementation I am proposing flag check using base class ref and set in API child class. Flags and get/set methods are members of the base class.)
If the base class has to do the check and set at load time as you suggest here are some things to consider: 1. API command class is loaded by its name at run time. 2. At this time code doesn't know if the API command is carrying sensitive data or not. 3. I did not find any annotation in the API command classes for return types that indicate password/secret key that could be used as a simple match string to help decide sensitivity of the class at load time, which means class needs to be modified to set such flag perhaps in its constructor or when it executes the command as suggested earlier. In a nutshell API command class modification is needed. I also agree with your second point that with introduction of another member variable and expectation of it being set by the child class, if there is a developer oversight purpose can get lost. I think by making a base class wrapper method e.g. InformCommandSensitivity abstract we should be able to enforce this at compile time. All API command classes will have to implement this method leading to setting/resetting of the flag as needed. Like you said I don't know the future security implications if any for such code. Considering all these I would like to go ahead with the approach I suggested. Thanks, Mandar On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>wrote: > Almost, I would like to see some construct that would allow for child > classes not to bother and let the baseclass do the checking and set > the flag at load time so api implemeters don't have to worry about > this. It is kind of a challenge but using reflection it should be > possible. > > As I understand your proposal every implementer of an api has to make > the consideration considering every field of the class. It will work > but automated processing of the api class could prevent oversights by > developers. > > On the other hand we will run into privacy and security related > situations not foreseeable right now. I am not sure if what I am > saying will pay off. > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Mandar Barve <mandar.ba...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > Daan, > > The child classes will "know" (since the API request/response > > parameters are known) at load time if they are to carry sensitive data > and > > they can set the flags at class load time/construction like you > mentioned. > > Flag check will be at the time of logging. > > > > Did you mean to suggest the same or am I missing something? > > > > Thanks, > > Mandar > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Mandar Barve < > mandar.ba...@sungard.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > In my opinion we should implement approach #2. I have tested this > >> approach > >> > for couple of sensitive commands list Users and list Accounts. It > looks > >> to > >> > work fine. > >> > >> > >> H Mandar, I agree but can some automation be done i.e. recognize > >> sensitive names of fields [pP]assword or varieties thereof? This can > >> be done at construction or even classloadtime and shouldn't impact > >> performance very much. > >> > >> otherwise #2 is more elegant and i mean this as an extension of #2 > >> > >> > >
