manifoldcf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kadri Atalay <atalay.ka...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Which version of Solr have implements the Document Level Access Control
Date Tue, 03 May 2011 18:46:27 GMT
Hi Carl,

Got the latest one, built and tried but same result..
At the mean time took a look my user account with AD browser, and as you can
see (attached) it does have a sAMAccountName attribute.
BTW, do we have to use objectClass = user for the search filter ?  May need
to check into this..

Thanks

Kadri

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:

> I tried locating details of DSID-031006E0 on MSDN, to no avail.
> Microsoft apparently doesn't document this error.
> But I asked around, and there are two potential avenues forward.
>
> Avenue 1: There is a Windows tool called LDP, which should allow you
> to browse AD's LDAP.  What you would need to do is confirm that each
> user has a sAMAccountName attribute.  If they *don't*, it is possible
> that the domain was not set up in compatibility mode, which means
> we'll need to find a different attribute to query against.
>
> Avenue 2: Just change the string "sAMAccountName" in the
> ActiveDirectoryAuthority.java class to "uid", and try again.  The
> "uid" attribute should exist on all AD installations after Windows
> 2000.
>
> Thanks,
> Karl
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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