river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Kleczek <michal.klec...@xpro.biz>
Subject Re: Towards Internet Jini Services (trust)
Date Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:36:39 GMT
Looks like the real underlying issue in understanding is the definition of the 
Jini Platform.

How I see it is: the platform is the _minimal_ set of software that I need to 
manually install on my computer to safely exchange objects (code + data) with 
other computers and run the code that constitutes those objects.

Everything else should be implemented as a service (an object) that is run on 
top of the platform - and should not be considered a part of the platform.
I would even say it should be discussed if discovery protocols and 
ServiceRegistrar definition are part of the platform.

So what do we have now?
JVM - necessary to have dynamic code downloading and permissions
PreferredClassProvider and PreferredClassLoader - necessary to deal with 
codebase issues
IntegrityVerifier interface, httpmd url handler and HttpmdIntegrityVerifier - 
necessary to make sure we download the right code to unmarshal an object (BTW 
- are there any fundamental security issues with having other 
UrlStreamHandlers and IntegrityVerifiers provided as services - similarly to 
how OSGI does that?)
TrustVerifier, ProxyTrust, RemoteMethodControl, Constraint, ProxyPreparer 
interfaces and their basic implementations - necessary to verify unmarshalled 
various JERI endpoint implementations - necessary to be able to implement 
ProxyTrust (BTW should unsecure endpoints like TcpEndpoint _really_ be part of 
the platform?)

As I see it - if we close the gap and solve the issue of possible DoS during 
deserialization we have a complete platform to build everything else as 
services on top of it.
Even complicated trust decisions can be made by delegating to trusted 
We can quite easily build "sandbox" services (for example on top of Phoenix) 
so that the client can choose not to download any code into it's own address 

What am I missing?


On Tuesday 05 of October 2010 13:07:35 Peter Firmstone wrote:
> Yes I think Sim is talking about making trust decisions and Michal and I
> are talking about the handshake, we need both, I don't think we're
> having an issue of agreement, just understanding.
> I'd like to see some kind of feedback service, where you give a good
> rating when you get a good service and a bad one when you don't.  I'd
> also like to see a security advisory service, for handling discovered
> vulnerabilities.  These things might be useful in making trust decisions.
> I'd also like some trust levels defined, with a wider range of
> permissions as trust increases.  But I'd only like to grant the
> intersection of the trust level Set of Permissions and the Set requested.
> I'd like to see the level of trust others are granting to a service via
> feedback services, if a service misbehaves and it's caught out, the
> level of trust will diminish.
> Then we can go with the crowd, safety in numbers, like a school of fish,
> just don't get caught in a bait ball.
> Cheers,
> Peter.
> Michal Kleczek wrote:
> > Of course - I am not talking about the problem of deciding whether I
> > should trust a particular service - this is a completely different
> > subject and I am not really sure if we should even try to solve it since
> > I don't think it is possible to do without human intervention. In the
> > end - choosing to trust and use gmail versus yahoo is not something that
> > can be done automatically.
> > 
> > But checking whether an object (code + data) comes from the service I
> > trust is something that can be done and is a prerequisite to the above
> > anyway.
> > 
> > Michal
> > 

View raw message