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 17:16:21 GMT
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