manifoldcf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release?
Date Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:48:28 GMT
The preliminary change has been done, and I was able to hand-test a
good chunk of the modified queries by hand, so I checked it in.  I
still need to test document expiration, however, and I'd like the
automated tests to cover the modified functionality.  I won't be able
to get to it this until next weekend at the earliest,

During the process of removing string constants from all queries, I
also noticed that string constants are used by the FileNet and
Documentum connectors.  These connectors have a proprietary, SQL-like
language (I don't know what the FileNet language is called, but the
Documentum one is called DQL.)  There does not appear to be any way to
use the equivalent of query parameters for either sql-like language.
If quoting is always unsafe, that would imply that neither the FileNet
connector nor the Documentum connector could be made secure, by
Robert's standards.  Of course, the same is going to be true of any
FileNet or Documentum client code.

Robert, Grant, do you believe I should delete these connectors?

Karl


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only vulnerability occurs if:
> (a) People use PostgreSQL configured incorrectly, AND
> (b) Coders change ManifoldCF after the release to use the
> quoteSQLString method for non-constant values.
> OR
> (a) People use PostgreSQL configured incorrectly, AND
> (b) Our audit procedures have overlooked a non-constant usage of
> quoteSQLString somehow.
>
> But, clearly, any whiff of a potential security issue, no matter how
> remote the chances of one actually existing in real life, are clearly
> enough to require some weeks of work before a release can be made.
> Personally, I'd be concerned about places where just plain quotes
> appeared in a string rather than finger quoteSQLString as a bad actor,
> but so be it.
>
> I therefore withdraw the release plan and will delete the release
> branch.  We can discuss strategy for release again when the code has
> been reworked and all the tests exist to confirm to my satisfaction
> that we've broken nothing.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jack Krupansky
> <jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>> At this point in the discussion maybe what we need is a clearly stated Jira
>> on the issue and what specifically is needed. Whether it is needed for 0.1
>> is another matter. It sounds like (potentially) a definite 1.0 issue, but
>> could we get by with a clear "statement of vulnerability" for a 0.x release
>> (if in fact there is an actual vulnerability)?
>>
>> It sounds like there may be a distinction between "actual" vulnerability and
>> "potential" vulnerability. Whether such a distinction really matters is
>> another matter.
>>
>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Grant Ingersoll
>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:36 AM
>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Release?
>>
>> I think if there are known vulnerabilities, we need to fix them.
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>
>>> You can be serious about security without agreeing on the remediation.
>>> This software certainly adhered to MetaCarta standards and was
>>> audited by government agencies as well.  I understand your position,
>>> but I don't know if everyone will see it in a similar way, since a
>>> code audit highlights no problems at this time, because quoteSQLString
>>> is used only on constant values.  What do others think?  If the
>>> incubator would prohibit release on this basis, how in the heck did
>>> solr ever get released?
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Do you believe that this is a
>>>>> requirement for an initial release?  If so, I believe we should
>>>>> suspend plans for that release and revisit it in February or March.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll certainly go along with whatever everyone feels on this one... it
>>>> was just always my impression that Apache was pretty serious about
>>>> security, but I'm not really sure how this applies to incubating
>>>> projects etc.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was relevant especially since the Solr Wiki says: The
>>>> recommended way to add document level security to your search is
>>>> through Apache Lucene Connector Framework (LCF).
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrSecurity
>>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message