sorry I have not responded till now Inline: Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 12/9/2008 7:37 AM: > From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> BJ, >> >> The client concern is in case a login/pwd couple is used but not by >> the right person (lost, stolen, etc.). Only biometric security >> could deal with that I guess. have to think on this one. using encrypted USB devices for login works with PGP.
>> >> By limiting the number of time a page can be visited in a period of >> time you don't really prevent using UI to pull out confidential >> data but you make it so long (years) that it's not usable. It's >> something used in spam fighting known as tarpitting. It has proven >> to be very efficient and is now used in the gray list concept wich >> works great. Anyway for the moment it's the requirement I have >> BTW I wonder if it should not better block the account and send a >> message to the admin in such case. He/she would then be able to reset >> the login/pwd to secure anew the login. yes use tarpitting works very well. I found it really slows down the spammers. However if there is a heavy use of tarpitting, you are using up a lot of threads and memory. I think blocking the account, and sending a email to the person's registered email with a link back to the login would validate them. the link would let them validate the email then another email would send them their logging information. CC the Admin would be an option as well. >> >> I will put the check in at end of RequestHandler.renderView just after >> the block where ServerHitBin.countView is used. This would >> clearly separate this new security aspect. And having it at the >> framework level is clearly easier : you only have to define a list >> of pages to constrain by PartyRoles. have to review code before I comment. > > I had a better idea : to use a preprocessor event. I will though need to > make a small change to allow to return a specific message from the > event. I guess it will be the only thing I will commit, except if some > people are interested in the tarpitting feature. interested but not knowledgeable enough to understand how it works. > > Jacques > >> In the check I will need >> . PartyRole(s), >> . The list of pages to constrain access by PartyRoles. I will be an >> ConstrainViewByRole entity with 2 fields : partyRole viewName >> (pages are actually views in OFBiz) >> . Max number of page access allowed, and the period of time for >> counting the number of page accesses in security.properties >> . An AccessedPage entity with fields loginId viewAccessed >> dateTimeOfAccess. (note : I changed UrlAccessed to viewAccessed) >> >> I think it's a feature generic enough to be used in Framework if >> someone is interested in future (if nothing is defined in >> security.properties the block would be simply skipped so it's >> harmful). So if nobody see a problem with that I will implement and >> commit. Any comments welcome >> >> Thanks >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Jacques: >>> my first reaction is if a robot can pull out confidential data then >>> ofbiz would not pass the PCI audit. >>> >>> >>> the focus should be to not allow log in to confidential data, unless a >>> strict protocol is followed. >>> >>> The other is to find all the ways a hack can be done, like DOS that may >>> also allow access into the system. >>> >>> SATAN (Security Administrator Tool for Analyzing Networks) (1990)test >>> very thoroughly. using it as a basis of testing would further ofbiz. >>> http://d4rk-c0de.org/2008/11/15/satan-securitry-administrator/. >>> >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 12/5/2008 8:25 AM: >>>> I have another requirement : being able to dissalow acces to some pages >>>> for some users if a number of hits in a pre-defined period of time is >>>> exceeded. I have an idea of how to do that but do you thing it could be >>>> interesting to be commited ? Maybe in a more generic way ? >>>> >>>> The purpose is security : this would prevent any kind of robot to pull >>>> out confidential data from the system. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> So refering to defintions in >>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/OFBiz+security this would be >>>>> between the component menu level and >>>>> the screen level (which use "<if-has-permission" and >>>>> "<if-service-permission" tags), that's it ? >>>>> >>>>> It would be great to be able to hide menus as Bruno suggested (having >>>>> a parameter in menu-item like David sugested for screens >>>>> def). It could be then named the menu level permission (we should >>>>> then rename the component menu level to component level or even >>>>> application level) >>>>> >>>>> In a 1st and generic approach we could use 2 user categories : experts >>>>> and novices. By default the expert mode would be used (all >>>>> shown OOTB) but users could change this in their preferences to novice >>>>> mode. So this would need to define what novice could and >>>>> should not see in all OFBiz (and should be updated later, being >>>>> visible by default). >>>>> >>>>> Later contributors could defines specific categories and they could be >>>>> added to users's preferences choice. Could not roles be used >>>>> for that or is it really orthogonal ? (customer service can't see >>>>> some accounting screens, but are able to view some other etc.). >>>>> >>>>> My 2 cts >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> From: "Bruno Busco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> David, >>>>>> I like this idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> So we should add a screen property to specify a permission. >>>>>> The same permission should be checked to render the menu item that >>>>>> takes to >>>>>> that screen (sub-screen). >>>>>> Is this what you mean? >>>>>> >>>>>> This could be done even without the "getAllPermissions" service >>>>>> proposed, am >>>>>> I right? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2008/12/3 David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One option for this (or at least part of it), and one that I think >>>>>>> has been >>>>>>> discussed before, would be to introduce a convention for naming >>>>>>> permissions >>>>>>> (or more to the point, "ID-ing" permissions) based on screen >>>>>>> names and >>>>>>> locations. A few aspects of this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. We could configure specific screens to always require the >>>>>>> screen-specific permission, or to require either a general >>>>>>> permission >>>>>>> (probably specified in the screen def) or the screen-specific >>>>>>> permission >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. this would be a view-only permission for rendering the screen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. doing it for each screen defined would allow for permissions on >>>>>>> sub-screens and such as well >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need to simplify the UI has I described. >>>>>>>> To do this I think the Map should contain ALL user permissions, not >>>>>>>> restricted to a single application. >>>>>>>> Could we think to specific permissions to hide the TabBar options? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand that OFBiz UI is designed to have ALL there because at >>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>> everybody sees that a feature is available but this creates a >>>>>>>> problem when >>>>>>>> deplying to end user. >>>>>>>> I understand also that the perfect UI is the one that reproduces >>>>>>>> the very >>>>>>>> specific users workflow and so it must be written ad hoc. >>>>>>>> But having an 80% fitting UI with only permissions setting (user >>>>>>>> profiling) >>>>>>>> could be a good result. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This IMO is another key factor for spreading OFBiz and having more >>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>> using it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to hear other idea about this and, possibly, some user >>>>>>>> profiling pattern ideas. >>>>>>>> For sure the Portlet system will help in this direction but could >>>>>>>> we think >>>>>>>> to a UI profiling through permission too? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2008/11/30 Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bruno, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I never got around to implementing that idea. I would still like >>>>>>>>> to work >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> it though. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- On Sat, 11/29/08, Bruno Busco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Bruno Busco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Discussion: Permissions Checking Enhancement >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 10:30 AM >>>>>>>>>> Hi Adrian, >>>>>>>>>> I am thinking to something similar to what you proposed in >>>>>>>>>> this thread. >>>>>>>>>> What I would like to do is to simplify the UI to users who >>>>>>>>>> should not >>>>>>>>>> perform some operations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For instance, in the catalog application, when looking to >>>>>>>>>> the EditProduct >>>>>>>>>> screen, I would like that the following tabmenus: >>>>>>>>>> Geos, IDs, Keywords, Associations, Manufacturing, Costs, >>>>>>>>>> Attributes, >>>>>>>>>> Agreements, Accounts, Maintenance, Meters, Workefforts >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> should not be visible to standard users while they should >>>>>>>>>> be visible to >>>>>>>>>> admin. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am thinking to implement several permissions (may be some >>>>>>>>>> are already >>>>>>>>>> there) and to check for them in the menu items. >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>> Did you implement something about it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2008/6/6 Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Correct. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>>> it make sense; so a CREATE permission check will >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> be sufficient for the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE button rendering. >>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/6/6 Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The pattern used so far is that the ADMIN >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> permission is checked first, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>> the other permissions. So if a user has the >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ADMIN permission, they don't >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> need the additional permissions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll probably have all of the permissions >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Map elements set to true if the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> user has the ADMIN permission. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a newbie question but... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in the example you give what will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen if a user has the ADMIN >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> permission but not the CREATE one? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will the Create New button be rendered? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words who is responsible for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> permission hierarchy ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In order to display the CREATE button, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should a user be given with the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE permission explicitly or the ADMIN >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is sufficient? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/6/6 Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll work on it this weekend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian I liked your idea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:46 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sumit Pandit < >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sumit Pandit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:04 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes this sounds good to me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Busco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wonderfull !!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it !!! ;-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will let me also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define a more granular permissions to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> simplify >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not-so-skilled users. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/6/4 Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> widgets, you can check permissions with the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <if-has-permission> or <if-service-permission> >>>>>>>>>> elements. That's >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> fine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only need to check >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single permission to control access to the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated when a screen's elements are controlled by >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one permission. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say you have a typical Edit Item screen. The >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be viewable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only to users who have the VIEW permission. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the UPDATE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permission can edit the item. Users who have the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CREATE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permission see a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "New Item" button. Users who have DELETE >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> permission >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Delete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Item" button. Users who have the ADMIN permission have >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> unrestricted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen. Wow. Five permission elements (and five >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are needed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control one screen. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea: have a permission service that returns ALL of the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> user's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Map. You call the service with the permission to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> check >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ACCOUNTING" for example. The service returns a >>>>>>>>>> Map containing all >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCOUNTING permissions stored as Boolean objects. Let's >>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned Map is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called permissionsMap and the user has >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ACCOUNTING_VIEW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCOUNTING_UPDATE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions, then the Map would contain these >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> elements: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CREATE=false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UPDATE=true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DELETE=false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VIEW=true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ADMIN=false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the service >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call is put in the screen's <actions> element, >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Map >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to control the display of screen widget >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> sections, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> menu items, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form fields. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freemarker code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be simpler too: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <#if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissionsMap.CREATE> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <!-- Render a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Create New button --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> </#if> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <#if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissionsMap.DELETE> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <!-- Render a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delete button --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> </#if> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
