The approach with UserAttributes map looks dirty to me and raises questions:

- Why is UserAttributes property related to authentication?
- UserAttributes name implies that users can put there anything they want,
but what for? What are those additional use cases?

I think we should focus on a specific problem at hand and avoid unnecessary
future-proofing.
What are current and potential future custom authenticators and what kind
of data do they need?

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita Amelchev <nsamelc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think we should add this. It will provide an extra level of security.
> This approach is used in many products, for example in AWS (MFA). [1]
>
> [1]
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
>
> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi, Pavel!
> >
> > Sometimes single authentication factor is not enough. Attributes proposed
> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> >
> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Token can be sent instead of a password (like git works with GitHub
> > > tokens).
> > >
> > > For now I don't see a reason to include attributes into the handshake
> > > message.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > One does not send security certificate as attribute. The only way to
> > > obtain
> > > > peer security certificate is to ask SSL engine to provide it.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be useful with e.g. Kerberos,
> which is
> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > This map is something like user object from `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not enough for security checks.
> For
> > > > > example, we can send security certificate and validate it inside
> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you please explain your use case?
> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is the motivation of this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupit...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the problem, can you explain it in
> more
> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map with arbitrary stuff to the
> client
> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > somefire...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility of sending user defined
> attributes
> > > > from
> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside custom authenticator during
> > > > handshake
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded binary writer for JDBC and
> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a classes in the JDK and
> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties, and tries to sync notdeclared
> > > > classes
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because current classloading uses
> discovery.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer and allow only primitive types
> and
> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent unexpected fails. I think it
> is
> > > > better
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with heavy classloading.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin attributes to primitives and
> 'String'?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

Reply via email to