manifoldcf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Which version of Solr have implements the Document Level Access Control
Date Tue, 03 May 2011 07:55:50 GMT
Because this looks like it might involve some experimentation, I
decided to create a branch for working on the CONNECTORS-195 ticket.
The branch has what I believe is the correct code checked into it.
The branch svn root is:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/branches/CONNECTORS-195

If you check this branch out and build it, I'd dearly love to know if
it properly detects non-existent users on your system.  In theory it
should.  If it is wrong, it might well decide that ALL users are
invalid, so your feedback is essential before I consider committing
this patch.

Thanks,
Karl

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
> I opened a ticket, CONNECTORS-195, and added what I think is an
> explicit check for existence of the user as a patch.  Can you apply
> the patch and let me know if it seems to fix the problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Karl
>
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I see, thanks for the response.
>> I'll look into it little deeper, before making a suggestion how to check for
>> this internal exception.. If JDK 1.6 behavior is different than JDK 1.5 for
>> LDAP, this may not be the only problem we may encounter..
>> Maybe any exception generated by JDK during this request should be
>> evaluated.. We'll see.
>> Thanks.
>> Kadri
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "NameNotFound exception is never being reached because process is
>>> throwing internal exception, and this is never checked."
>>>
>>> I see the logging trace; it looks like the ldap code is eating the
>>> exception and returning a blank list.  This is explicitly NOT what is
>>> supposed to happen, nor did it happen on JDK 1.5, I am certain.  You
>>> might find that this behavior has changed between Java releases.
>>>
>>> "Also, what is the reason for adding everyone group for each response ?"
>>>
>>> I added this in because the standard treatment of Active Directory
>>> 2000 and 2003 was to exclude the public ACL.  Since all users have it,
>>> if the user exists (which was the case if NameNotFound exception was
>>> not being thrown), it was always safe to add it in.
>>>
>>>
>>> If JDK xxx, which is eating the internal exception, gives back SOME
>>> signal that the user does not exist, we can certainly check for that.
>>> What signal do you recommend looking for, based on the trace?  Is
>>> there any way to get at "errEx    PartialResultException  (id=7962)  "
>>> from  NamingEnumeration answer?
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Karl,
>>> >
>>> > I noticed in the code that   NameNotFound exception is never being
>>> > reached
>>> > because process is throwing internal exception, and this is never
>>> > checked.
>>> > (see below)
>>> > Also, what is the reason for adding everyone group for each response ?
>>> >       theGroups.add("S-1-1-0");
>>> >
>>> > When there is no groups or SID's returned, following return code is
>>> > still
>>> > used..
>>> >       return new
>>> > AuthorizationResponse(tokens,AuthorizationResponse.RESPONSE_OK);
>>> >
>>> > Should I assume this code was tested against an Active Directory, and
>>> > working, and or should I start checking from the beginning every
>>> > parameter
>>> > is entered. (see below)
>>> > For example, in the following code, DIGEST-MD5 GSSAPI is used for
>>> > security
>>> > authentication, but user name and password is passed as a clear text..
>>> > and
>>> > not in the format they suggest in their documentation.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > Kadri
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://download.oracle.com/javase/jndi/tutorial/ldap/security/gssapi.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     if (ctx == null)
>>> >     {
>>> >       // Calculate the ldap url first
>>> >       String ldapURL = "ldap://" + domainControllerName + ":389";
>>> >
>>> >       Hashtable env = new Hashtable();
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > env.put(Context.INITIAL_CONTEXT_FACTORY,"com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory");
>>> >       env.put(Context.SECURITY_AUTHENTICATION,"DIGEST-MD5 GSSAPI");
>>> >       env.put(Context.SECURITY_PRINCIPAL,userName);
>>> >       env.put(Context.SECURITY_CREDENTIALS,password);
>>> >
>>> >       //connect to my domain controller
>>> >       env.put(Context.PROVIDER_URL,ldapURL);
>>> >
>>> >       //specify attributes to be returned in binary format
>>> >       env.put("java.naming.ldap.attributes.binary","tokenGroups
>>> > objectSid");
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > fakeuser@teqa
>>> >
>>> >     //Search for objects using the filter
>>> >       NamingEnumeration answer = ctx.search(searchBase, searchFilter,
>>> > searchCtls);
>>> >
>>> > answer    LdapSearchEnumeration  (id=6635)
>>> >     cleaned    false
>>> >     cont    Continuation  (id=6674)
>>> >     entries    Vector<E>  (id=6675)
>>> >     enumClnt    LdapClient  (id=6676)
>>> >         authenticateCalled    true
>>> >         conn    Connection  (id=6906)
>>> >         isLdapv3    true
>>> >         pcb    null
>>> >         pooled    false
>>> >         referenceCount    1
>>> >         unsolicited    Vector<E>  (id=6907)
>>> >     errEx    PartialResultException  (id=6677)
>>> >         cause    PartialResultException  (id=6677)
>>> >         detailMessage    "[LDAP: error code 10 - 0000202B: RefErr:
>>> > DSID-031006E0, data 0, 1 access points\n\tref 1: 'teqa'\n
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >       ArrayList theGroups = new ArrayList();
>>> >       // All users get certain well-known groups
>>> >       theGroups.add("S-1-1-0");
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > answer    LdapSearchEnumeration  (id=7940)
>>> >     cleaned    false
>>> >     cont    Continuation  (id=7959)
>>> >     entries    Vector<E>  (id=7960)
>>> >     enumClnt    LdapClient  (id=7961)
>>> >     errEx    PartialResultException  (id=7962)
>>> >         cause    PartialResultException  (id=7962)
>>> >         detailMessage    "[LDAP: error code 10 - 0000202B: RefErr:
>>> > DSID-031006E0, data 0, 1 access points\n\tref 1: 'teqa'\n
>>> >
>>> >       return new
>>> > AuthorizationResponse(tokens,AuthorizationResponse.RESPONSE_OK);
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> If a completely unknown user still comes back as existing, then it's
>>> >> time to look at how your domain controller is configured.
>>> >> Specifically, what do you have it configured to trust?  What version
>>> >> of Windows is this?
>>> >>
>>> >> The way LDAP tells you a user does not exist in Java is by an
>>> >> exception.  So this statement:
>>> >>
>>> >>      NamingEnumeration answer = ctx.search(searchBase, searchFilter,
>>> >> searchCtls);
>>> >>
>>> >> will throw the NameNotFoundException if the name doesn't exist, which
>>> >> the Active Directory connector then catches:
>>> >>
>>> >>    catch (NameNotFoundException e)
>>> >>    {
>>> >>      // This means that the user doesn't exist
>>> >>      return userNotFoundResponse;
>>> >>    }
>>> >>
>>> >> Clearly this is not working at all for your setup.  Maybe you can look
>>> >> at the DC's event logs, and see what kinds of decisions it is making
>>> >> here?  It's not making much sense to me at this point.
>>> >>
>>> >> Karl
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Get the same result with user doesn't exist
>>> >> > C:\OPT\security_example>curl
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=fakeuser@fakedomain"
>>> >> > AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC
>>> >> > TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0
>>> >> >
>>> >> > BTW, is there a command to get all users available in Active
>>> >> > Directory,
>>> >> > from
>>> >> > mcf-authority service, or other test commands to see if it's working
>>> >> > correctly ?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Also, I set the logging level to finest from Solr Admin for
>>> >> > ManifoldCFSecurityFilter,but I don't see any logs created.. Is
there
>>> >> > any
>>> >> > other settings need to be tweaked ?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Kadri
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> One other quick note.  You might want to try a user that doesn't
>>> >> >> exist
>>> >> >> and see what you get.  It should be a USERNOTFOUND response.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> If that's indeed what you get back, then this is a relatively
minor
>>> >> >> issue with Active Directory.  Basically the S-1-1-0 SID is
added by
>>> >> >> the active directory authority, so the DC is actually returning
an
>>> >> >> empty list of SIDs for the user with an unknown domain.  It
*should*
>>> >> >> tell us the user doesn't exist, I agree, but that's clearly
a
>>> >> >> problem
>>> >> >> only Active Directory can solve; we can't make that decision
in the
>>> >> >> active directory connector because the DC may be just one node
in a
>>> >> >> hierarchy.  Perhaps there's a Microsoft knowledge-base article
that
>>> >> >> would clarify things further.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Please let me know what you find.
>>> >> >> Karl
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > The method code from the Active Directory authority that
handles
>>> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> > LDAP query construction is below.  It looks perfectly
reasonable
>>> >> >> > to
>>> >> >> > me:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >  /** Parse a user name into an ldap search base. */
>>> >> >> >  protected static String parseUser(String userName)
>>> >> >> >    throws ManifoldCFException
>>> >> >> >  {
>>> >> >> >    //String searchBase =
>>> >> >> > "CN=Administrator,CN=Users,DC=qa-ad-76,DC=metacarta,DC=com";
>>> >> >> >    int index = userName.indexOf("@");
>>> >> >> >    if (index == -1)
>>> >> >> >      throw new ManifoldCFException("Username is in
unexpected form
>>> >> >> > (no @): '"+userName+"'");
>>> >> >> >    String userPart = userName.substring(0,index);
>>> >> >> >    String domainPart = userName.substring(index+1);
>>> >> >> >    // Start the search base assembly
>>> >> >> >    StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
>>> >> >> >    sb.append("CN=").append(userPart).append(",CN=Users");
>>> >> >> >    int j = 0;
>>> >> >> >    while (true)
>>> >> >> >    {
>>> >> >> >      int k = domainPart.indexOf(".",j);
>>> >> >> >      if (k == -1)
>>> >> >> >      {
>>> >> >> >        sb.append(",DC=").append(domainPart.substring(j));
>>> >> >> >        break;
>>> >> >> >      }
>>> >> >> >      sb.append(",DC=").append(domainPart.substring(j,k));
>>> >> >> >      j = k+1;
>>> >> >> >    }
>>> >> >> >    return sb.toString();
>>> >> >> >  }
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > So I have to conclude that your Active Directory domain
controller
>>> >> >> > is
>>> >> >> > simply not caring what the DC= fields are, for some reason.
 No
>>> >> >> > idea
>>> >> >> > why.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > If you want to confirm this picture, you might want to
create a
>>> >> >> > patch
>>> >> >> > to add some Logging.authorityConnectors.debug statements
at
>>> >> >> > appropriate places so we can see the actual query it's
sending to
>>> >> >> > LDAP.  I'm happy to commit this debug output patch eventually
if
>>> >> >> > you
>>> >> >> > also want to create a ticket.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Thanks,
>>> >> >> > Karl
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Kadri Atalay
>>> >> >> > <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> Yes, ManifoldCF is running with JCIFS connector, and
using Solr
>>> >> >> >> 3.1
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> response to first call:
>>> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe"
>>> >> >> >> UNREACHABLEAUTHORITY:TEQA-DC
>>> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> response to fake domain call:
>>> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe@fakedomain"
>>> >> >> >> AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC
>>> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> response to actual domain account call:
>>> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay_admin@teqa"
>>> >> >> >> AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC
>>> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Looks like as long as there is a domain suffix, return
is
>>> >> >> >> positive..
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Thanks
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Kadri
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karl Wright
>>> >> >> >> <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> So you are trying to extend the example in the
book, correct, to
>>> >> >> >>> run
>>> >> >> >>> against active directory and the JCIFS connector?
 And this is
>>> >> >> >>> with
>>> >> >> >>> Solr 3.1?
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> The book was written for Solr 1.4.1, so it's entirely
possible
>>> >> >> >>> that
>>> >> >> >>> something in Solr changed in relation to the way
search
>>> >> >> >>> components
>>> >> >> >>> are
>>> >> >> >>> used.  So I think we're going to need to do some
debugging.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> (1) First, to confirm sanity, try using curl against
the mcf
>>> >> >> >>> authority
>>> >> >> >>> service.  Try some combination of users to see
how that works,
>>> >> >> >>> e.g.:
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> curl
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe"
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> ...and
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> curl
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe@fakedomain"
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> ...and also the real domain name, whatever that
is.  See if the
>>> >> >> >>> access
>>> >> >> >>> tokens that come back look correct.  If they
don't then we know
>>> >> >> >>> where
>>> >> >> >>> there's an issue.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> If they *are* correct, let me know and we'll go
to the next
>>> >> >> >>> stage,
>>> >> >> >>> which would be to make sure the authority service
is actually
>>> >> >> >>> getting
>>> >> >> >>> called and the proper query is being built and
run under Solr
>>> >> >> >>> 3.1.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> Thanks,
>>> >> >> >>> Karl
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Kadri Atalay
>>> >> >> >>> <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> > Hi Karl,
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > I followed the instructions, and for testing
purposes set
>>> >> >> >>> > "stored=true"
>>> >> >> >>> > to
>>> >> >> >>> > be able to see the ACL values stored in Solr.
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > But, when I run the search in following format
I get peculiar
>>> >> >> >>> > results..
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > :http://10.1.200.155:8080/solr/select/?q=*%3A*&AuthenticatedUserName=username
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > Any user name without a domain name  ie
>>> >> >> >>> > AuthenticatedUserName=joe
>>> >> >> >>> > does
>>> >> >> >>> > not
>>> >> >> >>> > return any results (which is correct)
>>> >> >> >>> > But any user name with ANY domain name returns
all the indexes
>>> >> >> >>> > ie
>>> >> >> >>> > AuthenticatedUserName=joe@fakedomain  
(which is not correct)
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > Any thoughts ?
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > Thanks
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > Kadri
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Karl Wright
>>> >> >> >>> > <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> Solr 3.1 is being clever here; it's seeing
arguments coming
>>> >> >> >>> >> in
>>> >> >> >>> >> that
>>> >> >> >>> >> do
>>> >> >> >>> >> not correspond to known schema fields,
and presuming they are
>>> >> >> >>> >> "automatic" fields.  So when the schema
is unmodified, you
>>> >> >> >>> >> see
>>> >> >> >>> >> these
>>> >> >> >>> >> fields that Solr creates for you, with
the attr_ prefix.
>>> >> >> >>> >>  They
>>> >> >> >>> >> are
>>> >> >> >>> >> created as being "stored", which is not
good for access
>>> >> >> >>> >> tokens
>>> >> >> >>> >> since
>>> >> >> >>> >> then you will see them in the response.
 I don't know if they
>>> >> >> >>> >> are
>>> >> >> >>> >> indexed or not, but I imagine not, which
is also not good.
>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> So following the instructions is still
the right thing to do,
>>> >> >> >>> >> I
>>> >> >> >>> >> would
>>> >> >> >>> >> say.
>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> Karl
>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Kadri
Atalay
>>> >> >> >>> >> <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Hi Karl,
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > There is one thing I noticed while
following the example in
>>> >> >> >>> >> > chapter
>>> >> >> >>> >> > 4.:
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Prior to making any changes into
the schema.xml, I was able
>>> >> >> >>> >> > to
>>> >> >> >>> >> > see
>>> >> >> >>> >> > the
>>> >> >> >>> >> > following security information in
query responses:
>>> >> >> >>> >> > ie:
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <doc>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > -
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_allow_token_document">
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-3-0</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-13</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-18</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-544</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-545</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-547</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > </arr>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > -
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_allow_token_share">
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-2</str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > -
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > TEQA-DC:S-1-5-21-1212545812-2858578934-3563067286-1480
>>> >> >> >>> >> > </str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > </arr>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > -
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_content">
>>> >> >> >>> >> > -
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <str>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >                      
       Autonomy ODBC Fetch Technical
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Brief
>>> >> >> >>> >> > 0506
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Technical Brief
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > But, after I modified the schema/xml,
and added the
>>> >> >> >>> >> > following
>>> >> >> >>> >> > fields,
>>> >> >> >>> >> >     <!-- Security fields -->
>>> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="allow_token_document"
type="string"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="deny_token_document"
type="string"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="allow_token_share"
type="string"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="deny_token_share"
type="string"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
>>> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > I longer see neither the attr_allow_token_document
  or the
>>> >> >> >>> >> > allow_token_document fields..
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Since same fields exist with attr_
 prefix, should we need
>>> >> >> >>> >> > to
>>> >> >> >>> >> > add
>>> >> >> >>> >> > these
>>> >> >> >>> >> > new
>>> >> >> >>> >> > field names into the schema file,
or can we simply change
>>> >> >> >>> >> > ManifoldSecurity
>>> >> >> >>> >> > to use attr_ fields ?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Also, when Solr is running under
Tomcat, I have to re-start
>>> >> >> >>> >> > the
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Solr
>>> >> >> >>> >> > App, or
>>> >> >> >>> >> > re-start Tomcat to see the newly
added indexes..
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Any thoughts ?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Thanks
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > Kadri
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM,
Karl Wright
>>> >> >> >>> >> > <daddywri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> I don't believe Solr has yet
officially released document
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> access
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> control, so you will need to
use the patch for ticket
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> 1895.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> Alternatively, the ManifoldCF
in Action chapter 4 example
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> has
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> an
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> implementation based on this
ticket.  You can get the code
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> for
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> it at
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> https://manifoldcfinaction.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/edition_1/security_example.
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks,
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> Karl
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:45
AM, Kadri Atalay
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Hello,
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Does anyone know which
version of Solr have implements
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Document
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Level
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Access Control, or has
it implemented (partially or
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > fully)
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > ?
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Particularly issue #s 1834,
1872, 1895
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Thanks
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Kadri
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message