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: basic security review
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:00:02 GMT

On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:

> Yes, that's a good idea. Also, excellent work with reviewing the
> LoginModules and adding tests!!!
>
> I just added two new LoginModules to look at. I'm particularly
> concerned about CertificateChainLoginModule since it always returns
> true in its login() function. But I'm not exactly sure how this is
> being used.
The CertificateChainLoginModule probably isn't much good in real life  
at this point.  My thinking was that if we've set up an SSL  
connection with a client certificate, that means the SSL machinery  
has already verified that the client certificate is valid according  
to the CA's we know about, and we aren't going to get much more  
definitive about someone's identity than that.  The real problem is  
that in order for this user to do anything we have to assign  
application level roles to them individually since there is no  
associated concept of "enterprise roles" or "groups".  In our current  
system this is a major inconvenience.  I'm not sure it's worth  
actually fixing it since we'd get into providing a whole lot of  
identity>> enterprise role >> application role stores (properties  
file, sql, ldap, ....).  This kind of mapping is one of the big  
things I want triplesec to support in an easy-to-use-way.

thanks
david jencks

>
> Jarek
>
> On 10/31/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1vamsi1c@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we should create JIRAs for each review activity that  
>> results in code
>> changes and update the wiki with the JIRA number.  This way we  
>> will be able
>> to track the progress on each activity in one central place.   
>> Also, add
>> important points from this discussion thread to the wiki too.
>>
>> ++Vamsi
>>
>> On 10/30/07, Prasad Kashyap <goyathlay.geronimo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree. Our strategy to make Geronimo secure should include an
>>> elaborate set of unit testcases, a rich set of tests in the
>>> security-testsuite in our testsuite framework,  along with  peer
>>> review of code in components that are potential security risks.
>>>
>>> We should aim to have imbricate or maybe even duplicate tests  
>>> than have
>> gaps.
>>>
>>> Towards this end, I created a security-testsuite in our testsuite
>>> framework. It contains one test now. I shall add some more soon.
>>> Please contribute to this testsuite with more and more tests that  
>>> you
>>> can think of.
>>>
>>> Thanx
>>> Prasad
>>>
>>> On 10/29/07, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> A few security problems were discovered in Geronimo in the last few
>>>> months and weeks. Most of them were Geronimo-specific except one.
>>>> Therefore, I think we should spend a little bit of our time to  
>>>> review
>>>> our code and check for potential security problems.
>>>> As the first step, I think we should identify components that make
>>>> security decisions (e.g. LoginModules) or enable access to server
>>>> management and control (e.g. MEJB) or any other components that  
>>>> might
>>>> be important for sever security.
>>>> Once we have a few components identified we can start the review.
>>>> Besides finding and fixing the potential security problems  
>>>> during the
>>>> review we must also ensure that we have decent tests for these
>>>> components that cover a range of inputs. For each problem that  
>>>> we do
>>>> discover, we must write a test case to make sure it never happens
>>>> again. Basically, a problem is not fully addressed until we have a
>>>> test for it.
>>>>
>>>> For now, I created the following page where we can keep track of  
>>>> the
>>>> components and the review:
>>>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Security+Review
>>>> Feel free to update it in any way.
>>>>
>>>> Opinions? Ideas? Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Jarek
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message