couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Issues blocking the 1.2.0 release
Date Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:53:39 GMT
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:41, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 19:35 , Randall Leeds wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:19, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 19:13 , Randall Leeds wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 04:14, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>>>> Devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please outline:
>>>>>
>>>>>   - What has been changed since round one of the 1.2.0 release
>>>>>   - What remains to be fixed for regression purposes
>>>>>   - Who is doing these fixes, and when will they be done by
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> N
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to know if it was always the case that design doc actions on
>>>> system dbs were inaccessible to non-admins or if that's just since the
>>>> recent security changes. If it's recent, why was that part deemed
>>>> necessary and can we remove it?
>>>
>>> It is part of the recent changes and the reason is that a view potentially
>>> leaks information about docs and we don't want that. I'm happy to relax this
>>> later if we can convince people to write views that don't compromise their
>>> security, but until then I opted for the more secure default.
>>>
>>
>> I motion to remove this restriction now, unless there are actions on
>> the system dbs, installed by default, that leak anything at all.
>> I see the motivation but I feel it might be overly paranoid. Only an
>> admin can modify the ddocs. If a user decides to add views to
>> _replicator or _user they had best think about what they expose and to
>> whom.
>>
>> If there's no objection I can try to tackle this in the evening.
>
> I object :)

Hmm. What's your reasoning?

Mime
View raw message