Igor,
I see nothing criminal in attribute visibility to internal Ignite
components. It could be a hole if attributes were available through public
API.
вт, 28 янв. 2020 г., 13:07 Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>:
> Ilya,
>
> The fact that we have some security holes does not sound to me
> like a good reason to create a new one.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:22 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > We already have several "security contexts" and we even have some code
> > which tries to clear sensitive data from it.
> >
> > However, it is no good for authenticating nodes anyway, since discovery
> > message have to travel via ring, so all server nodes will have access to
> > sensitive information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 11:41, Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >
> > > I'm not a security expert, but I have a concern about the usage
> > > of common purpose mechanism for authentication purposes.
> > >
> > > I mean any other component seem to be able to get this data which
> > > should be private. Looks like a dangerous hack to me, to be honest.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should create and use some kind of "security context" for
> > > this purpose with limited access.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:29 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, if no one have objections, I will restrict a map by strings only.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 17:20 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> > > false
> > > > > is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > > > metadata
> > > > > Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have
> > > typeId,
> > > > > field ids and positions.
> > > > > There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this
> > > mode,
> > > > > full type name is included in the binary object.
> > > > > However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be
> > > present
> > > > to
> > > > > deserialize.
> > > > > That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the
> handshake:
> > in
> > > > > most cases they can't be decoded.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > somefire...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > // descriptor transportation fails here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode
> > binary
> > > > > values
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> > > side
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes.
> > What's
> > > > the
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > case?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class
> descriptor
> > > > check.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact
> footer
> > =
> > > > > false
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any
> external
> > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode
> > binary
> > > > > values
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> > > side.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > nsamelc...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupit...@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all
> > > those
> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > > > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects
> in
> > > > user
> > > > > > > > > attributes.
> > > > > > > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird
> > and
> > > > > > dirty.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class
> > > descriptor
> > > > > > check.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add
> > > some
> > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any
> > > language
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform
> complex
> > > > data
> > > > > > > > > structures,
> > > > > > > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[],
> > > will
> > > > > try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing
> class
> > > > > > > descriptor.
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we
> > write
> > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can
> get
> > > > > objects
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary
> > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can
> > be
> > > > used
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then
> > > > display
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such
> > approach
> > > > > > (Oracle
> > > > > > > > DB,
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package,
> > > > PostgreeSQL
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and
> > application
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely
> > limit
> > > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary
> marshaller
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying
> > to
> > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going
> on
> > > > (left
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients
> in
> > > > > Python,
> > > > > > > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we
> add
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
