accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: "NOT" operator in visibility string
Date Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:39:35 GMT
Yes, dsingley. There's a few reasons not to accept the patch as-is:

1. It completely changes the data security model without offering a
way to disable it. For instance, we could have previously assumed that
an authorizations service, such as that implemented in ACCUMULO-259
could safely fail with a lockdown mode, by returning an empty set of
authorizations for a user. The implication of which would mean that
users data could be safely secured in the event of a failure.
Introducing a NOT means that this failure mode is not guaranteed to
have the intended effect. In general, the design has been that a
reduced set of authorizations will result in less access to data, not

2. At least as importantly, it's adds no enforceable semantics to the
security API. The API permits scanning with a reduced set of
authorizations than the max for a user, so a user can still get access
to data that it was otherwise not able to with their full
authorizations. It may help some use cases, in terms of query
convenience, but it does not help secure data in any enforceable way,
and that's the whole point of visibility labels in the first place.

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM, dsingley <> wrote:
> Assuming Jeff's use case is legitimate and others users can ignore the NOT
> feature, is there any other reason not to accept Joe's patch?
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at

View raw message