geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo 2.0 Release suspended due to security issue found before release
Date Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:34:35 GMT
I've now fixed GERONIMO-3407 in trunk, rev 565657.  I added new  
methods to ContextManager and removed direct use of LoginContext.   
Among other things this may make implementing jaspi slightly easier.

New methods are:
     public static LoginContext login(String realm, CallbackHandler  
callbackHandler) throws LoginException {
         Subject subject = new Subject();
         LoginContext loginContext = new LoginContext(realm, subject,  
callbackHandler);
         loginContext.login();
         SubjectId id = ContextManager.registerSubject(subject);
         IdentificationPrincipal principal = new  
IdentificationPrincipal(id);
         subject.getPrincipals().add(principal);
         return loginContext;
     }

     public static void logout(LoginContext loginContext) throws  
LoginException {
         Subject subject = loginContext.getSubject();
         ContextManager.unregisterSubject(subject);
         loginContext.logout();
     }


This revision needs to be ported to branches/2.0 and wherever 2.0.1 is.

thanks
david jencks

On Aug 13, 2007, at 6:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> I think I've fixed GERONIMO-3404 and GERONIMO-3406 in trunk, rev  
> 565599.  It might be a good idea for this to get a review before we  
> port it to branches/2.0 and possibly branches/2.0.x.
>
> I haven't decided how to fix GERONIMO-3407 yet, and could be talked  
> out of it for 2.0.1. The problem would manifest itself as geronimo  
> not working if anyone tried to  use a login module with REQUISITE  
> or (I think) SUFFICIENT flags.  I don't think there's any security  
> exposure, it just that you effectively couldn't log in with such a  
> login configuration.
>
> On a completely unrelated issue I can't build modules/geronimo-axis- 
> builder in trunk as part of the main build, I get a complaint from  
> javac.  I don't have problems building it by itself.  Anyone else  
> see this?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> So before we all jump onto option 2 maybe we should consider just  
>> how big a change this set of bugs is causing and comparatively how  
>> much branches/2.0 has changed since 2.0.0 was cut.
>>
>> It looks like there have been about 15 commits to branches/2.0  
>> that aren't version changes, many of them simple fixes that make  
>> things like the plugin installer actually usable.  On the other  
>> hand so far I've modified 16 files working on this security fix  
>> (admittedly most of them either simple fixes and/or documentation)  
>> and still have to figure out a solution to  
>> SubjectRegistrationLoginModule not working (GERONIMO-3407)
>>
>> If we go with  (2) I would like some of the changes to branches/ 
>> 2.0 to be merged in, especially rev 563592.  I think r563662 and  
>> r563782 would be good also.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Earlier today one of the Geronimo committers discovered a bug in  
>>> the command line deployer where a null user / password on the  
>>> deployer command line will allow a user to deploy modules to a  
>>> 2.0 server.  This is an unacceptable security exposure and as  
>>> such we have abandoned the release of Geronimo 2.0.
>>>
>>> Donald Woods is going to open a JIRA for this issue and Hernan  
>>> will create a news item on our web page.
>>>
>>> At this point we need to discuss how to move forward with a 2.0  
>>> release.
>>>
>>> I think we should delete the tags/2.0.0 entry and replace it with  
>>> a text file that notes the svn rev of the tree before deletion.   
>>> The purpose of this is to avoid anyone from picking up that  
>>> source tree and using it to build a server with a known security  
>>> exposure.  Unless there is disagreement I'd like to do that  
>>> tomorrow allowing some time for discussion.  We can always put it  
>>> back.
>>>
>>> There are several options for the 2.0 release:
>>>
>>> 1. Use the branches/2.0 to spin up a new release as 2.0.1.
>>>   If we do this there are a number of fixes that need to be  
>>> verified, We'd need to close out the SNAPSHOT releases again, or  
>>> at least revisit them.
>>>   Respin and re-tck a new release.
>>>
>>> 2. Take the tags/2.0.0 to create a branches/2.0.1
>>>   This would mean that we need to update branches/2.0 to 2.0.2- 
>>> SNAPSHOT
>>>   Copy the existing tag over and apply the security fixes.   
>>> Repsin and release.
>>>
>>> Personally, I vote for option 2.  Based on my experience, closing  
>>> out the SNAPSHOTs is and introducing little changes will cause us  
>>> to restart the release process.
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear other people's input but having done the release  
>>> several times option 2 is the fastest.  I think option 1 will  
>>> cause us to not release until September.
>>
>


Mime
View raw message