Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:30:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Benoit Chesneau (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <1199773995.41253.1316417408892.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <1042454867.40917.1316399768852.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-1287) Inbox Database ("write-only"
 mode)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1287?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13107666#comment-13107666 ] 

Benoit Chesneau commented on COUCHDB-1287:
------------------------------------------

@kowsic that's another topic. But indeed you can use validate update function to forbid doc insertion. You can do it by checking the user doc. Throttling protections and such however can be added using authenticate module eventually or any other system.

> Inbox Database ("write-only" mode)
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1287
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1287
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: HTTP Interface
>    Affects Versions: 2.0
>            Reporter: Jason Smith
>            Priority: Minor
>
> 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], {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: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira