manifoldcf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Which version of Solr have implements the Document Level Access Control
Date Tue, 03 May 2011 23:39:23 GMT
I thought you were using the Quick Start, whcih does not have a sync directory.

Karl

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note:
> Did that, still didn't helped, but deleting the contents of mysyncdir
> worked.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Never seen that before.  Do you have more than one instance running?
>> Only one instance can run at a time or the database is unhappy.
>>
>> If that still doesn't seem to be the problem, try "ant clean" and then
>> "ant build" again.  It will clean out the existing database instance.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Karl,
>> >
>> > You are right, somehow I still had the OLD 195 code..
>> > Just got the latest, compiled, but this one doesn't start after the
>> > message
>> > "Configuration file successfully read"
>> >
>> > Any ideas ?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Kadri
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The latest CONNECTORS-195 branch code doesn't use sAMAccountName.  It
>> >> uses ObjectSid.  Your schema has ObjectSid.  The version of
>> >> ActiveDirectoryAuthority in trunk looks up ObjectSid too.  Indeed, the
>> >> only change is the addition of the following:
>> >>
>> >> if (theGroups.size() == 0)
>> >>  return userNotFoundResponse;
>> >>
>> >> This CANNOT occur for an existing user, because all existing users
>> >> must have at least one SID.  And, if existing users returned the
>> >> proper SIDs before, this should not change anything.  So I cannot see
>> >> how you could be getting the result you claim.
>> >>
>> >> Are you SURE you synched up the CONNECTORS-195 branch and built that?
>> >> I have not checked this code into trunk yet.
>> >>
>> >> Karl
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Kadri Atalay <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Carl,
>> >> >
>> >> > Got the latest one, built and tried but same result..
>> >> > At the mean time took a look my user account with AD browser, and as
>> >> > you
>> >> > can
>> >> > see (attached) it does have a sAMAccountName attribute.
>> >> > BTW, do we have to use objectClass = user for the search filter ?
>> >> > May
>> >> > need
>> >> > to check into this..
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> >
>> >> > Kadri
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I tried locating details of DSID-031006E0 on MSDN, to no avail.
>> >> >> Microsoft apparently doesn't document this error.
>> >> >> But I asked around, and there are two potential avenues forward.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Avenue 1: There is a Windows tool called LDP, which should allow you
>> >> >> to browse AD's LDAP.  What you would need to do is confirm that each
>> >> >> user has a sAMAccountName attribute.  If they *don't*, it is
>> >> >> possible
>> >> >> that the domain was not set up in compatibility mode, which means
>> >> >> we'll need to find a different attribute to query against.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Avenue 2: Just change the string "sAMAccountName" in the
>> >> >> ActiveDirectoryAuthority.java class to "uid", and try again.  The
>> >> >> "uid" attribute should exist on all AD installations after Windows
>> >> >> 2000.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> Karl
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > I removed the object scope from the user lookup - it's worth
>> >> >> > another
>> >> >> > try.  Care to synch up an run again?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Karl
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> As I feared, the new user-exists-check code is not correct in
>> >> >> >> some
>> >> >> >> way.  Apparently we can't retrieve the attribute I'm looking for
>> >> >> >> by
>> >> >> >> this kind of query.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The following website seems to have some suggestions as to how to
>> >> >> >> do
>> >> >> >> better, with downloadable samples, but I'm not going to be able
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> look at it in any detail until this evening.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.techtalkz.com/windows-server-2003/424352-get-samaccountnames-all-users-active-directory-group.html
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Karl
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kadri Atalay
>> >> >> >> <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> Karl,
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Here is the first round of tests with CONNECTORS-195t: Now we
>> >> >> >>> are
>> >> >> >>> getting
>> >> >> >>> all responses as TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY.. even with valid users.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Please take a  look at the 2 bitmap files I have attached. (they
>> >> >> >>> have
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>> screen shots from debug screens)
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> invalid user and invalid domain
>> >> >> >>> C:\OPT>curl
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=fakeuser@fakedomain"
>> >> >> >>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> >> >> >>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> invalid user and valid (full domain name)
>> >> >> >>> C:\OPT>curl
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=fakeuser@teqa.filetek.com"
>> >> >> >>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> >> >> >>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> valid user and valid domain  (please see bitmap file
>> >> >> >>> katalay_admin@teqa.bmp)
>> >> >> >>> This name gets the similar error as the first fakeuser
>> >> >> >>> eventhough
>> >> >> >>> it's
>> >> >> >>> a
>> >> >> >>> valid user.
>> >> >> >>> C:\OPT>curl
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay_admin@teqa"
>> >> >> >>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> >> >> >>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> valid user and valid domain (full domain name) (please see
>> >> >> >>> bitmap
>> >> >> >>> file
>> >> >> >>> katalay_admin@teqa.filetek.com.bmp) This name gets a
>> >> >> >>> namenotfound
>> >> >> >>> exception
>> >> >> >>> when full domain name is used.
>> >> >> >>> C:\OPT>curl
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay_admin@teqa.filetek.com"
>> >> >> >>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> >> >> >>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> valid user and valid domain (full domain name)
>> >> >> >>> C:\OPT>curl
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> "http://localhost:8345/mcf-authority-service/UserACLs?username=katalay@teqa.filetek.com"
>> >> >> >>> USERNOTFOUND:TEQA-DC
>> >> >> >>> TOKEN:TEQA-DC:DEAD_AUTHORITY
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Thanks
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Kadri
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Because this looks like it might involve some experimentation,
>> >> >> >>>> I
>> >> >> >>>> decided to create a branch for working on the CONNECTORS-195
>> >> >> >>>> ticket.
>> >> >> >>>> The branch has what I believe is the correct code checked into
>> >> >> >>>> it.
>> >> >> >>>> The branch svn root is:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/branches/CONNECTORS-195
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> If you check this branch out and build it, I'd dearly love to
>> >> >> >>>> know
>> >> >> >>>> if
>> >> >> >>>> it properly detects non-existent users on your system.  In
>> >> >> >>>> theory
>> >> >> >>>> it
>> >> >> >>>> should.  If it is wrong, it might well decide that ALL users
>> >> >> >>>> are
>> >> >> >>>> invalid, so your feedback is essential before I consider
>> >> >> >>>> committing
>> >> >> >>>> this patch.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Thanks,
>> >> >> >>>> Karl
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Karl Wright
>> >> >> >>>> <daddywri@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> > I opened a ticket, CONNECTORS-195, and added what I think is
>> >> >> >>>> > an
>> >> >> >>>> > explicit check for existence of the user as a patch.  Can you
>> >> >> >>>> > apply
>> >> >> >>>> > the patch and let me know if it seems to fix the problem?
>> >> >> >>>> >
>> >> >> >>>> > Thanks,
>> >> >> >>>> > Karl
>> >> >> >>>> >
>> >> >> >>>> >
>> >> >> >>>> > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Kadri Atalay
>> >> >> >>>> > <atalay.kadri@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> >> 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