[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13490568#comment-13490568 ]
Robert Newson commented on COUCHDB-1259: ---------------------------------------- Sorry, Benoit, I simply can't see the security problem you are trying to describe at all. Walk me through a process where a server changes ports and security is violated. As far as I can tell, the only difference this patch makes is that we can resume replication from a checkpoint where we previously couldn't. That a server changes port doesn't invalidate the checkpoint's integrity, nor do I trust the server more or less based on its numeric port value. If I want to trust the machine, I need TLS, which is completely orthogonal to this ticket. > Replication ID is not stable if local server has a dynamic port number > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: COUCHDB-1259 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1259 > Project: CouchDB > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Replication > Affects Versions: 1.1 > Reporter: Jens Alfke > Assignee: Robert Newson > Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 1.3 > > Attachments: couchdb-1259.patch, couchdb-1259.patch > > > I noticed that when Couchbase Mobile running on iOS replicates to/from a > remote server (on iriscouch in this case), the replication has to fetch the > full _changes feed every time it starts. Filipe helped me track down the > problem -- the replication ID is coming out different every time. The reason > for this is that the local port number, which is one of the inputs to the > hash that generates the replication ID, is randomly assigned by the OS. (I.e. > it uses a port number of 0 when opening its listener socket.) This is because > there could be multiple apps using Couchbase Mobile running on the same > device and we can't have their ports colliding. > The underlying problem is that CouchDB is attempting to generate a unique ID > for a particular pair of {source, destination} databases, but it's basing it > on attributes that aren't fundamental to the database and can change, like > the hostname or port number. > One solution, proposed by Filipe and me, is to assign each database (or each > server?) a random UUID when it's created, and use that to generate > replication IDs. > Another solution, proposed by Damien, is to have CouchDB let the client work > out the replication ID on its own, and set it as a property in the > replication document (or the JSON body of a _replicate request.) This is even > more flexible and will handle tricky scenarios like full P2P replication > where there may be no low-level way to uniquely identify the remote database > being synced with. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira