directory-fortress mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn McKinney <>
Subject Re: [Bulk] [Bulk] RBAC Constraints
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:47:50 GMT
(The other) Shawn,
I think your idea to add additional attributes into the authorization decision has merit. 
ftcontextid is reserved for multitenancy (i.e. tenant id), but ftproperties is fine.  I'd
like to see some use cases for this and maybe we can find an appropriate way to facilitate
into this api set / data model.
I saw your talks were accepted - congrats on that btw.  I am out of town this week but could
hop on conf call next week to discuss.

     On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:37 PM, SHAWN E SMITH <> wrote:

 Hey Arkanshawn,

Hope all's well.  What we're looking at is the granularity of the permissions in the context
of standard EE security.  What we've come up with is:

  |                    |                        |
Grouping            Specific                Specific
  of              Permission              Context    
Permissions        (i.e. -                  for a 
                    system-read)          given user

And how that translates is that in the case of @RolesAllowed(X), X is actually a permission,
and the context is used inside the method to determine how to slice the data if necessary.

Context we've broken into 3 pieces, Meta (this is the flag used to determine what to slice
on), Type (this is the type of the meta field), Value(s)/Range (This is the valid matching

We're looking at putting the context into an ftProp value on the individual and using business
logic in the app to interpret.  I think there might be value in using something like ftContext,
but wanted to see if we can get the communities take on it.

So, what we'd end up with is something similar to systemX-read:userid:string:self in the property.

Would very much appreciate any thoughts on this approach.

BTW - we got selected for both talks at JavaONE, maybe we can have a phone con about the security
one in the relatively near future?

Take care,

"The programmer … works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff.
He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination."
— Fred Brooks

Shawn Smith
Director of Software Engineering
Administrative Information Services

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn McKinney" <>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 11:41:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [Bulk] RBAC Constraints

Today there is no way to do it.  The existing constraint mechanism here is for role activation
only - not permission checks.  It is worth discussing adding something like this.  It would
no be difficult.  It would require you to implement a callback interface.  Would something
like that work?


> On Aug 24, 2015, at 9:59 AM, Chris Pike <> wrote:
> Shawn,
> Thanks for the quick response. I was able to implement the time validator interface but
the validator compares a provided time against the constraint. I need to compare my arbitrary
input against the constraint. I should be able to store the constraint info and look it up
inside the validator, but how can I pass my arbitrary input to check access?
> ~Chris Pike
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shawn McKinney" <>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 11:17:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RBAC Constraints
>> On Aug 24, 2015, at 8:14 AM, Shawn McKinney <> wrote:
>> 1. Implement the interface. 
The existing temporal evaluators all reside inside the same package. You may use one of those
as an example.
> correction:
> Implement the interface.
> Shawn

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message