manifoldcf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kadri Atalay <atalay.ka...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Which version of Solr have implements the Document Level Access Control
Date Mon, 02 May 2011 19:51:50 GMT
I see, thanks for the response.
I'll look into it little deeper, before making a suggestion how to check for
this internal exception.. If JDK 1.6 behavior is different than JDK 1.5 for
LDAP, this may not be the only problem we may encounter..
Maybe any exception generated by JDK during this request should be
evaluated.. We'll see.
Thanks.
Kadri

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:

> "NameNotFound exception is never being reached because process is
> throwing internal exception, and this is never checked."
>
> I see the logging trace; it looks like the ldap code is eating the
> exception and returning a blank list.  This is explicitly NOT what is
> supposed to happen, nor did it happen on JDK 1.5, I am certain.  You
> might find that this behavior has changed between Java releases.
>
> "Also, what is the reason for adding everyone group for each response ?"
>
> I added this in because the standard treatment of Active Directory
> 2000 and 2003 was to exclude the public ACL.  Since all users have it,
> if the user exists (which was the case if NameNotFound exception was
> not being thrown), it was always safe to add it in.
>
>
> If JDK xxx, which is eating the internal exception, gives back SOME
> signal that the user does not exist, we can certainly check for that.
> What signal do you recommend looking for, based on the trace?  Is
> there any way to get at "errEx    PartialResultException  (id=7962)  "
> from  NamingEnumeration answer?
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Karl,
> >
> > I noticed in the code that   NameNotFound exception is never being
> reached
> > because process is throwing internal exception, and this is never
> checked.
> > (see below)
> > Also, what is the reason for adding everyone group for each response ?
> >       theGroups.add("S-1-1-0");
> >
> > When there is no groups or SID's returned, following return code is still
> > used..
> >       return new
> > AuthorizationResponse(tokens,AuthorizationResponse.RESPONSE_OK);
> >
> > Should I assume this code was tested against an Active Directory, and
> > working, and or should I start checking from the beginning every
> parameter
> > is entered. (see below)
> > For example, in the following code, DIGEST-MD5 GSSAPI is used for
> security
> > authentication, but user name and password is passed as a clear text..
> and
> > not in the format they suggest in their documentation.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Kadri
> >
> >
> http://download.oracle.com/javase/jndi/tutorial/ldap/security/gssapi.html
> >
> >
> >     if (ctx == null)
> >     {
> >       // Calculate the ldap url first
> >       String ldapURL = "ldap://" + domainControllerName + ":389";
> >
> >       Hashtable env = new Hashtable();
> >
> >
> env.put(Context.INITIAL_CONTEXT_FACTORY,"com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory");
> >       env.put(Context.SECURITY_AUTHENTICATION,"DIGEST-MD5 GSSAPI");
> >       env.put(Context.SECURITY_PRINCIPAL,userName);
> >       env.put(Context.SECURITY_CREDENTIALS,password);
> >
> >       //connect to my domain controller
> >       env.put(Context.PROVIDER_URL,ldapURL);
> >
> >       //specify attributes to be returned in binary format
> >       env.put("java.naming.ldap.attributes.binary","tokenGroups
> objectSid");
> >
> >
> >
> > fakeuser@teqa
> >
> >     //Search for objects using the filter
> >       NamingEnumeration answer = ctx.search(searchBase, searchFilter,
> > searchCtls);
> >
> > answer    LdapSearchEnumeration  (id=6635)
> >     cleaned    false
> >     cont    Continuation  (id=6674)
> >     entries    Vector<E>  (id=6675)
> >     enumClnt    LdapClient  (id=6676)
> >         authenticateCalled    true
> >         conn    Connection  (id=6906)
> >         isLdapv3    true
> >         pcb    null
> >         pooled    false
> >         referenceCount    1
> >         unsolicited    Vector<E>  (id=6907)
> >     errEx    PartialResultException  (id=6677)
> >         cause    PartialResultException  (id=6677)
> >         detailMessage    "[LDAP: error code 10 - 0000202B: RefErr:
> > DSID-031006E0, data 0, 1 access points\n\tref 1: 'teqa'\n
> >
> >
> >       ArrayList theGroups = new ArrayList();
> >       // All users get certain well-known groups
> >       theGroups.add("S-1-1-0");
> >
> >
> > answer    LdapSearchEnumeration  (id=7940)
> >     cleaned    false
> >     cont    Continuation  (id=7959)
> >     entries    Vector<E>  (id=7960)
> >     enumClnt    LdapClient  (id=7961)
> >     errEx    PartialResultException  (id=7962)
> >         cause    PartialResultException  (id=7962)
> >         detailMessage    "[LDAP: error code 10 - 0000202B: RefErr:
> > DSID-031006E0, data 0, 1 access points\n\tref 1: 'teqa'\n
> >
> >       return new
> > AuthorizationResponse(tokens,AuthorizationResponse.RESPONSE_OK);
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If a completely unknown user still comes back as existing, then it's
> >> time to look at how your domain controller is configured.
> >> Specifically, what do you have it configured to trust?  What version
> >> of Windows is this?
> >>
> >> The way LDAP tells you a user does not exist in Java is by an
> >> exception.  So this statement:
> >>
> >>      NamingEnumeration answer = ctx.search(searchBase, searchFilter,
> >> searchCtls);
> >>
> >> will throw the NameNotFoundException if the name doesn't exist, which
> >> the Active Directory connector then catches:
> >>
> >>    catch (NameNotFoundException e)
> >>    {
> >>      // This means that the user doesn't exist
> >>      return userNotFoundResponse;
> >>    }
> >>
> >> Clearly this is not working at all for your setup.  Maybe you can look
> >> at the DC's event logs, and see what kinds of decisions it is making
> >> here?  It's not making much sense to me at this point.
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Get the same result with user doesn't exist
> >> > C:\OPT\security_example>curl
> >> >
> >> > "
> http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=fakeuser@fakedomain
> "
> >> > AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC
> >> > TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0
> >> >
> >> > BTW, is there a command to get all users available in Active
> Directory,
> >> > from
> >> > mcf-authority service, or other test commands to see if it's working
> >> > correctly ?
> >> >
> >> > Also, I set the logging level to finest from Solr Admin for
> >> > ManifoldCFSecurityFilter,but I don't see any logs created.. Is there
> any
> >> > other settings need to be tweaked ?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Kadri
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> One other quick note.  You might want to try a user that doesn't
> exist
> >> >> and see what you get.  It should be a USERNOTFOUND response.
> >> >>
> >> >> If that's indeed what you get back, then this is a relatively minor
> >> >> issue with Active Directory.  Basically the S-1-1-0 SID is added by
> >> >> the active directory authority, so the DC is actually returning an
> >> >> empty list of SIDs for the user with an unknown domain.  It *should*
> >> >> tell us the user doesn't exist, I agree, but that's clearly a problem
> >> >> only Active Directory can solve; we can't make that decision in the
> >> >> active directory connector because the DC may be just one node in a
> >> >> hierarchy.  Perhaps there's a Microsoft knowledge-base article that
> >> >> would clarify things further.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please let me know what you find.
> >> >> Karl
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > The method code from the Active Directory authority that handles
> the
> >> >> > LDAP query construction is below.  It looks perfectly reasonable
to
> >> >> > me:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >  /** Parse a user name into an ldap search base. */
> >> >> >  protected static String parseUser(String userName)
> >> >> >    throws ManifoldCFException
> >> >> >  {
> >> >> >    //String searchBase =
> >> >> > "CN=Administrator,CN=Users,DC=qa-ad-76,DC=metacarta,DC=com";
> >> >> >    int index = userName.indexOf("@");
> >> >> >    if (index == -1)
> >> >> >      throw new ManifoldCFException("Username is in unexpected
form
> >> >> > (no @): '"+userName+"'");
> >> >> >    String userPart = userName.substring(0,index);
> >> >> >    String domainPart = userName.substring(index+1);
> >> >> >    // Start the search base assembly
> >> >> >    StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
> >> >> >    sb.append("CN=").append(userPart).append(",CN=Users");
> >> >> >    int j = 0;
> >> >> >    while (true)
> >> >> >    {
> >> >> >      int k = domainPart.indexOf(".",j);
> >> >> >      if (k == -1)
> >> >> >      {
> >> >> >        sb.append(",DC=").append(domainPart.substring(j));
> >> >> >        break;
> >> >> >      }
> >> >> >      sb.append(",DC=").append(domainPart.substring(j,k));
> >> >> >      j = k+1;
> >> >> >    }
> >> >> >    return sb.toString();
> >> >> >  }
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So I have to conclude that your Active Directory domain controller
> is
> >> >> > simply not caring what the DC= fields are, for some reason.  No
> idea
> >> >> > why.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you want to confirm this picture, you might want to create
a
> patch
> >> >> > to add some Logging.authorityConnectors.debug statements at
> >> >> > appropriate places so we can see the actual query it's sending
to
> >> >> > LDAP.  I'm happy to commit this debug output patch eventually
if
> you
> >> >> > also want to create a ticket.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Karl
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Kadri Atalay
> >> >> > <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Yes, ManifoldCF is running with JCIFS connector, and using
Solr
> 3.1
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> response to first call:
> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl
> >> >> >> "
> http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe"
> >> >> >> UNREACHABLEAUTHORITY:TEQA-DC
> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> response to fake domain call:
> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "
> http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe@fakedomain
> "
> >> >> >> AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC
> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> response to actual domain account call:
> >> >> >> C:\OPT\security_example>curl
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "
> http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay_admin@teqa
> "
> >> >> >> AUTHORIZED:TEQA-DC
> >> >> >> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Looks like as long as there is a domain suffix, return is
> positive..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Kadri
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com
> >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> So you are trying to extend the example in the book, correct,
to
> >> >> >>> run
> >> >> >>> against active directory and the JCIFS connector?  And
this is
> with
> >> >> >>> Solr 3.1?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The book was written for Solr 1.4.1, so it's entirely
possible
> that
> >> >> >>> something in Solr changed in relation to the way search
> components
> >> >> >>> are
> >> >> >>> used.  So I think we're going to need to do some debugging.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> (1) First, to confirm sanity, try using curl against the
mcf
> >> >> >>> authority
> >> >> >>> service.  Try some combination of users to see how that
works,
> >> >> >>> e.g.:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> curl
> >> >> >>> "
> http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe"
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ...and
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> curl
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> "
> http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=joe@fakedomain
> "
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ...and also the real domain name, whatever that is.  See
if the
> >> >> >>> access
> >> >> >>> tokens that come back look correct.  If they don't then
we know
> >> >> >>> where
> >> >> >>> there's an issue.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If they *are* correct, let me know and we'll go to the
next
> stage,
> >> >> >>> which would be to make sure the authority service is actually
> >> >> >>> getting
> >> >> >>> called and the proper query is being built and run under
Solr
> 3.1.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >> >>> Karl
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Kadri Atalay
> >> >> >>> <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > Hi Karl,
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > I followed the instructions, and for testing purposes
set
> >> >> >>> > "stored=true"
> >> >> >>> > to
> >> >> >>> > be able to see the ACL values stored in Solr.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > But, when I run the search in following format I
get peculiar
> >> >> >>> > results..
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > :
> http://10.1.200.155:8080/solr/select/?q=*%3A*&AuthenticatedUserName=username
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Any user name without a domain name  ie
> AuthenticatedUserName=joe
> >> >> >>> > does
> >> >> >>> > not
> >> >> >>> > return any results (which is correct)
> >> >> >>> > But any user name with ANY domain name returns all
the indexes
> >> >> >>> > ie
> >> >> >>> > AuthenticatedUserName=joe@fakedomain   (which is
not correct)
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Any thoughts ?
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Thanks
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Kadri
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Karl Wright <
> daddywri@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Solr 3.1 is being clever here; it's seeing arguments
coming in
> >> >> >>> >> that
> >> >> >>> >> do
> >> >> >>> >> not correspond to known schema fields, and presuming
they are
> >> >> >>> >> "automatic" fields.  So when the schema is unmodified,
you see
> >> >> >>> >> these
> >> >> >>> >> fields that Solr creates for you, with the attr_
prefix.  They
> >> >> >>> >> are
> >> >> >>> >> created as being "stored", which is not good
for access tokens
> >> >> >>> >> since
> >> >> >>> >> then you will see them in the response.  I don't
know if they
> >> >> >>> >> are
> >> >> >>> >> indexed or not, but I imagine not, which is also
not good.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> So following the instructions is still the right
thing to do,
> I
> >> >> >>> >> would
> >> >> >>> >> say.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Karl
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Kadri Atalay
> >> >> >>> >> <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> > Hi Karl,
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > There is one thing I noticed while following
the example in
> >> >> >>> >> > chapter
> >> >> >>> >> > 4.:
> >> >> >>> >> > Prior to making any changes into the schema.xml,
I was able
> to
> >> >> >>> >> > see
> >> >> >>> >> > the
> >> >> >>> >> > following security information in query
responses:
> >> >> >>> >> > ie:
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > <doc>
> >> >> >>> >> > -
> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_allow_token_document">
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-3-0</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-13</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-18</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-544</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-545</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-32-547</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > </arr>
> >> >> >>> >> > -
> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_allow_token_share">
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-1-0</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>TEQA-DC:S-1-5-2</str>
> >> >> >>> >> > -
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>
> >> >> >>> >> > TEQA-DC:S-1-5-21-1212545812-2858578934-3563067286-1480
> >> >> >>> >> > </str>
> >> >> >>> >> > </arr>
> >> >> >>> >> > -
> >> >> >>> >> > <arr name="attr_content">
> >> >> >>> >> > -
> >> >> >>> >> > <str>
> >> >> >>> >> >                              Autonomy ODBC
Fetch Technical
> >> >> >>> >> > Brief
> >> >> >>> >> > 0506
> >> >> >>> >> > Technical Brief
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > But, after I modified the schema/xml, and
added the
> following
> >> >> >>> >> > fields,
> >> >> >>> >> >     <!-- Security fields -->
> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="allow_token_document"
type="string"
> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="deny_token_document"
type="string"
> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="allow_token_share" type="string"
> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
> >> >> >>> >> >     <field name="deny_token_share" type="string"
> >> >> >>> >> > indexed="true"
> >> >> >>> >> > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > I longer see neither the attr_allow_token_document
  or the
> >> >> >>> >> > allow_token_document fields..
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Since same fields exist with attr_  prefix,
should we need
> to
> >> >> >>> >> > add
> >> >> >>> >> > these
> >> >> >>> >> > new
> >> >> >>> >> > field names into the schema file, or can
we simply change
> >> >> >>> >> > ManifoldSecurity
> >> >> >>> >> > to use attr_ fields ?
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Also, when Solr is running under Tomcat,
I have to re-start
> >> >> >>> >> > the
> >> >> >>> >> > Solr
> >> >> >>> >> > App, or
> >> >> >>> >> > re-start Tomcat to see the newly added indexes..
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Any thoughts ?
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Thanks
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Kadri
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Karl Wright
> >> >> >>> >> > <daddywri@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> I don't believe Solr has yet officially
released document
> >> >> >>> >> >> access
> >> >> >>> >> >> control, so you will need to use the
patch for ticket 1895.
> >> >> >>> >> >> Alternatively, the ManifoldCF in Action
chapter 4 example
> has
> >> >> >>> >> >> an
> >> >> >>> >> >> implementation based on this ticket.
 You can get the code
> >> >> >>> >> >> for
> >> >> >>> >> >> it at
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> https://manifoldcfinaction.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/edition_1/security_example
> .
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >>> >> >> Karl
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Kadri
Atalay
> >> >> >>> >> >> <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Does anyone know which version
of Solr have implements
> the
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Document
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Level
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Access Control, or has it implemented
(partially or
> fully)
> >> >> >>> >> >> > ?
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Particularly issue #s 1834, 1872,
1895
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Kadri
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message