Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 19EB610270 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 20:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 3287 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2013 20:09:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 3247 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2013 20:09:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 3238 invoked by uid 99); 5 Apr 2013 20:09:16 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:09:16 +0000 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 20:09:16 +0000 (UTC) From: "Kevin Gaudin (JIRA)" To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1287?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13624012#comment-13624012 ] Kevin Gaudin commented on COUCHDB-1287: --------------------------------------- I just figured out that Cloudant have their own security system with a specific _writer role. This is exactly what I needed. I really would love to see this as a standard CouchDB feature. > 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: 1.2 > Reporter: Jason Smith > Priority: Minor > Attachments: 0001-fake-db-infos-when-dropbox-true-and-the-user-isn-t-a.patch, 0001-handle-dropbox-db.-Add-dropbox-true-to-security-obje.patch, 0001-handle-dropbox-db.-Add-dropbox-true-to-security-obje.patch, A_0001-Refactor-reader_acl-test-functions-into-a-loop.patch, A_0002-Refactor-the-actual-read-check-out-of-the-member-che.patch, A_0003-Allow-non-member-writes-if-_security.members.allow_a.patch, B_0001-Refactor-reader_acl-test-functions-into-a-loop.patch, B_0002-Refactor-the-actual-read-check-out-of-the-member-che.patch, B_0003-Allow-non-member-updates-if-_security.members.allow_.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. > 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. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira