I'm sorry Jim, I can't even remotely begin to agree with you. There are not *some* complexities. There are almost infinite complexities. Some of this might be clear to a professional IT guru like yourself, but (I will wager) that most cannot scratch even the surface. The document you link to is 7000 words long, and includes enterprise JAAS configuration that is on (it states) by default. What? And implied permissions? It reads like a matrix of potential security combinations.
We don't even know what the relationship is between container users and wiki users. Are they the same? And what then about the wiki groups & container roles? Are they the same? I'm in the odd state of not being able to log out of the wiki. If I log out and the page says logged out G’day (what is that, Klingon?) I just hit back on the browser and I'm back in and able to edit! That's a trivial example, but illustrates the point well. And how can you even dream of having anonymous users on an internet facing wiki? As soon as you try to implement some form of primitive security against the evil hordes out there, you run afoul of the *flexibility*. I think that you have to conclude that the whole security thing's a mess. You might want to review the holistic scope of barriers to adoption. The reasons run deep and I've written on them previously, but I guess that nothing is likely to improve. *What is JSPWiki for?* I'd dearly love JSPWiki to succeed, but honestly I cannot see a way forward even though I keep desperately searching. Naff powers of persuasion I guess. Unfortunately at this moment I'm repurposing my wiki so there's a fierce debate between heart and mind as to whether I should seek greener grass. Is this too -ve? On 4 October 2017 at 14:01, Jim Willeke <j...@willeke.com> wrote: > While I somewhat agree that an implementation of using an externalized > Access Control Model would be better in some respects, I do find that the > current implementation is well thought out and quite flexible for Wiki > usage. > > Any Java Container implementation must simultaneously deal with file > permissions, web container permissions, java.policy. > > WIKI-Groups and Page ACLs were deliberately meant to be managed outside of > the web container or java.policy so that users can create discretionary > "roles" without getting system admins involved. This is an intentional > feature, and a very powerful one which along with Page ACLs reduces the > barrier to adoption. > We all know the difficulty of getting some administrator in some other area > of an organization to grant (or deny) access to a "thing". > > Note that the hierarchy for Access Control is: (I do not see this > documented, it was in a user group a few years back) > > - "built-in" roles > - container-managed roles > - WIKI-Groups > - WIKI-Profiles > > AFIK, any "Container" implementation deals with deal with file permissions, > "Container" permissions. > > There are some complexities that may documented but not so well for those > not familiar with the concepts. > I think this page probably summarise most of the concepts: > https://jspwiki-wiki.apache.org/Wiki.jsp?page=Wiki.Admin.Security > > Questions, Comments and Suggestions for improvements are always welcome. > > -- > -jim > Jim Willeke > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Paul Uszak <paul.us...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well I still have trouble with the permissions /users after a couple of > > years. All sorts of weird things happen. > > > > I've stated previously that I consider the security configuration > > extremely complicated, bordering on unusable. You cannot have a credible > > product that uses (simultaneously) file permissions, web container > > permissions, wiki policies and per page directives. I can't think of > > another application that has such complex security across so many levels. > > It's madness - do you hear me? Sheer madness :-) > > > > Seriously, I would suggest a total overhaul to simplify massively. I'd > > even consider writing some clearer documentation. It might reduce the > > number of set up issues that appear here. Although, with four dimensional > > security I suspect I'm not up to it. > > > > What was the question again..? > > > > It seems to me that if only the front page is publicly visible, it > needn't > > be within the wiki's context. Simply have a static front page at one > URI, > > and have the private wiki at another. It also means you don't have to > > explain why you're being unfriendly as the wiki will be invisible > > (unlinked). I have something similar myself. Or have I misunderstood? > > > > On 3 October 2017 at 20:09, Jürgen Weber <juer...@jwi.de> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I followed Dave's blog entry at > > > > > > https://blog.davekoelmeyer.co.nz/2014/07/20/configuring-a- > > > public-jspwiki-instance-for-private-use/ > > > > > > Has someone tried to keep the front page public? (i.e. to give a > > > friendly reason for the rest of the pages being private) > > > > > > I tried to give all front facing pages [{ALLOW view ALL}] > > > but still only the login prompt. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Juergen > > > > > >
