[
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
