couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benoit Chesneau (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-1287) Inbox Database ("write-only" mode)
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:08:09 GMT


Benoit Chesneau commented on COUCHDB-1287:

@jason Thanks for the implementation patch. I had a quick look about it. But indeed couch_db:*
isn't an appropriate place for that imo, it shouldn't know anything about #httpd{} imo, passing
it in the req option is awkward.

Maybe we could go to a simpler way ? I was thinking we could allows any readers to do anything
but just accept PUT /db/docid and POST /db {...} so no handlers at alls. Which make the test
easier imo since you only have to test for "<<"_", _/binary>>. Also  rewrite should
be disabled for non readers.


> Inbox Database ("write-only" mode)
> ----------------------------------
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1287
>                 URL:
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: HTTP Interface
>    Affects Versions: 2.0
>            Reporter: Jason Smith
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: A_0001-Refactor-reader_acl-test-functions-into-a-loop.patch, A_0002-Refactor-the-actual-read-check-out-of-the-member-che.patch,
> Currently, we can only grant combined read+write access in the _security object "members"
section. A user can either do both or neither. This prevents a very common requirement for
couch apps: sending private information from less-privileged users to more-privileged users.
> There is no (reasonable) way to make an "inbox" where anybody may create a doc for me,
but only I may read it. An inbox database allows user-to-user, or user-to-admin private messages.
(Not only chat messages, but asynchronous notifications--with a per-user inbox, perhaps even
service requests and responses.)
> There is no reason _security.members (formerly .readers) should control write access.
validate_doc_update() functions do this better.
> I propose a boolean flag, _security.members.allow_anonymous_writes. If it is true, then
CouchDB will allow document updates from non-members, giving validate_doc_update() the final
word on accepting or rejecting the update.
> Requirements:
> 1. Everything about _security stays the same (backward-compatible)
> 2. If members.allow_anonymous_writes === true, then most PUT and POSTs may proceed
> 3. All updates are still subject to approval by all validate_doc_update functions, same
as before.
> The following unit tests cover as much of the functionality as I can think of. (My patch
is unfinished but X indicates that I have it working.)
> X Set a database with validate_doc_update, members != []
> X member can write
> X non-member cannot read
> X non-member cannot write
> X non-member cannot write even with .is_ok = true
> X Set inbox mode
> For non-member:
>   X cannot update with .is_ok = false (still subject to validator)
>   X can create with .is_ok = true
>   X can update with .is_ok = true
>   X Can store an attachment with "_attachments"
>   X Can store attachments via direct query
>   X Can delete an attachment via direct query
>   X can delete the doc
>   X can create via an _update function
>   X can update via an _update function
>   * None of these should work:
>     X POST a temp view
>     X POST a view with {"keys":["keys", "which", "exist", "and some which don't"]
>     * POST /db/exist X-HTTP-Method-Override: GET
>     * POST /db/_all_docs
>     * POST /db/_changes
>     * For _show and _list:
>       * POST
>       * OPTIONS
>       * VARIOUS, NONSTANDARD, METHODS (in case Couch allows them later)
>   * These syntax/semantic errors in _security should all fail:
>     * .members.required_to_write = null, [missing], "", 0, true, 1, "false", [false],
>     * .required_to_write = false
> These are the known changes to the security model. I consider these all to be either
very unlikely in practice, or worth the trade-off.
> * If you write to an inbox DB, you know, for a time, a subset of its documents (but that's
the point)
> * An _update function could reveal a document to the user, with or without changing it.
However, an admin must install such a misguided update function.
> * You can launch timing attacks to learn information about validate_doc_update
>   * You might discover whether doc IDs exist in the DB or not
>   * You might discover a well-known open source validation function. You can look for
bugs in its source code.
> * Zero or more things which Jason can't think of

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message