On 29 June 2016 at 16:18, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 29/06/16 14:26, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> On 29 June 2016 at 14:11, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 29/06/16 13:43, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >>>> >>>> I personally dislike >>>> examples using ANONYMOUS, though I can see the appeal that it avoids >>>> particular credentials, and may be easier out the box for certain >>>> servers. There are of course also other servers out there that dont do >>>> ANONYMOUS by default / especially obviously / at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally I think for servers, having anonymous enabled by default is >>> safer >>> than having a predefined guest user. However... >>> >> >> I see them as equally poor in terms of end state security, but the >> latter at least requires using the functionality needed to >> authenticate once you change the credentials. > > > For clients, I agree that making it easy to use examples with full > authentication is valuable. > > For *servers*, I don't think anything is learned by having a pre-created > user and I'd argue it's perhaps easier to forget to remove it than it is to > disable anonymous. > > I think having anonymous disabled by default is a perfectly sensible choice > (especially if it is easy to enable it and the process for doing so is > documented in an easy to find location). Adding a dummy user seems much less > desirable to me.
I think I misinterpreted your use of "predefined" earlier. I was only really considering whether I think it makes sense for a client example to use user credentials by default (I do, but also like the flexibility of your patch, so will overlook that :P), I dont actually think the "guest" (or whatever that name it is easily changed to) user always needs to be pre-defined on the server from the get go. Other than perhaps implicitly by overlooking what you were actually saying, I don't think I've said it needs to be. Adding a user [of any name you choose] seems a valuable exercise to me, I've have no problem in requiring users do that themselves, and many servers ship in such fully locked down states for that reason (I used two yesterday). Regardless I'd say its as easy to overlook disabling anonymous as it is to overlook changing a user account used / added while at the basic stage of running an example, particularly if the things using it dont necessarily stop working once you do add authentication later. > > However, my focus at present is really just about the client side and > whether the examples could be made more flexible. That would make them more > useful against different servers with different views on default > configurations. > > More complete patch for comments: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49380/ > Looks good to me (I was actually doing the same before I spotted your mail :P), feel free to push it in. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
