[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13217678#comment-13217678 ]
Jan Høydahl commented on SOLR-3161: ----------------------------------- bq. !! (jaw dropping awe) Not soon enough! Apparently its when I started looking into it, some 5+ years after Solr was released. Jan, if I submitted an optional feature to Solr, perhaps a servlet filter that errors if parameters don't meet certain patterns, would you -1 it on principle? No I wouldn't. Security is very important in some environments and in fact I'd like us to start supporting those use cases better, such as writing a generic document-level security component for various connector frameworks (such as MCF) to hook in to. But I'm very clear on that we should *not* start documenting ways to secure Solr/Tomcat/Jetty in a way that is suitable for public exposure - simply because that is a slippery slope and would give users the impression that Solr is secure and needs no further locking down. But for this issue I'm more interested in the functionality aspect. I must admit that the way I use {{qt}} in my projects is nothing more than a way to select a named instance of a *Search*RequestHandler with request-param defaults. So the fact that {{qt}} can completely switch to any RequestHandler is really too generic and seldom used. In that context your suggestion for a {{enableQt="true"}} param could make sense. If you enable it for all RH's, QT will work as today, or you can pick a few. > Use of 'qt' should be restricted to searching and should not start with a '/' > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-3161 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3161 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: search, web gui > Reporter: David Smiley > Assignee: David Smiley > Fix For: 3.6, 4.0 > > > I haven't yet looked at the code involved for suggestions here; I'm speaking > based on how I think things should work and not work, based on intuitiveness > and security. In general I feel it is best practice to use '/' leading > request handler names and not use "qt", but I don't hate it enough when used > in limited (search-only) circumstances to propose its demise. But if someone > proposes its deprecation that then I am +1 for that. > Here is my proposal: > Solr should error if the parameter "qt" is supplied with a leading '/'. > (trunk only) > Solr should only honor "qt" if the target request handler extends > solr.SearchHandler. > The new admin UI should only use 'qt' when it has to. For the query screen, > it could present a little pop-up menu of handlers to choose from, including > "/select?qt=mycustom" for handlers that aren't named with a leading '/'. This > choice should be positioned at the top. > And before I forget, me or someone should investigate if there are any > similar security problems with the shards.qt parameter. Perhaps shards.qt can > abide by the same rules outlined above. > Does anyone foresee any problems with this proposal? > On a related subject, I think the notion of a default request handler is bad > - the default="true" thing. Honestly I'm not sure what it does, since I > noticed Solr trunk redirects '/solr/' to the new admin UI at '/solr/#/'. > Assuming it doesn't do anything useful anymore, I think it would be clearer > to use <requestHandler name="/select" class="solr.SearchHandler"> instead of > what's there now. The delta is to put the leading '/' on this request handler > name, and remove the "default" attribute. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org