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 16:52:02 GMT
I removed the object scope from the user lookup - it's worth another
try.  Care to synch up an run again?

Karl

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I feared, the new user-exists-check code is not correct in some
> way.  Apparently we can't retrieve the attribute I'm looking for by
> this kind of query.
>
> The following website seems to have some suggestions as to how to do
> better, with downloadable samples, but I'm not going to be able to
> look at it in any detail until this evening.
>
> http://www.techtalkz.com/windows-server-2003/424352-get-samaccountnames-all-users-active-directory-group.html
>
> Karl
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Karl,
>>
>> Here is the first round of tests with CONNECTORS-195t: Now we are getting
>> all responses as TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY.. even with valid users.
>>
>> Please take a  look at the 2 bitmap files I have attached. (they have the
>> screen shots from debug screens)
>>
>> invalid user and invalid domain
>> C:\OPT>curl
>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=fakeuser@fakedomain"
>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>>
>> invalid user and valid (full domain name)
>> C:\OPT>curl
>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=fakeuser@teqa.filetek.com"
>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>>
>> valid user and valid domain  (please see bitmap file katalay_admin@teqa.bmp)
>> This name gets the similar error as the first fakeuser eventhough it's a
>> valid user.
>> C:\OPT>curl
>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay_admin@teqa"
>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>>
>> valid user and valid domain (full domain name) (please see bitmap file
>> katalay_admin@teqa.filetek.com.bmp) This name gets a namenotfound exception
>> when full domain name is used.
>> C:\OPT>curl
>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay_admin@teqa.filetek.com"
>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>>
>> valid user and valid domain (full domain name)
>> C:\OPT>curl
>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay@teqa.filetek.com"
>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Kadri
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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