2:16 p.m.
Morning, answers inline.
--
abstractj
On January 22, 2014 at 8:26:25 AM, Sebastien Blanc (scm.blanc(a)gmail.com) wrote:
Hi,
Since the User Management PR has been submitted [1] there has
been of a lot
of useful and interesting feedback, thanks Matzew and Abstractj
for that.
Some valid concerns has been raised, in particular 2 of them that
I would
like to expose here and to discuss to see how we can deal witth them
for
the 0.10.0 release :
1.
Currently the password register/reset link that is generated
is persisted.
This is a point of concern[2]. The fact is that with the current
flow, we
can not go against that:
- An admin create an user, a link is generated.
- The admin send this link to the new user.
- The user browse to link -> at this moment we need to be able to retrieve
the stored link to check for its validity.
I completely understand that you guys need to release it by the end of this month and I’m
not against it. The goal was just to alert about the risks and maybe create new Jiras for
it (only to people know that we are aware of it).
Some points :
- The token/register link is presisted without any relation
with the newly
created user, so an hacker could not make a connection between
the 2.
Maybe is my misunderstanding about the big picture, but the token has no relation with the
newly created user, why do we have something like
this? https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/118#di...
- The new created user, as long he has not registered through the
link,
can not log into the system as he has no password, as Bruno suggested
me to
do on the ML.
How shall we deal with that for 0.10.0 ? We can improve in 0.11.0
If we are aware of the improvements to the next release, why not? Just make sure to remove
any relation between users and tokens (at least for password reseting) and also make it
clear to the “admin” that with "great power comes with great responsibility”.
I would suggest to point them to Jiras at our docs, we can always improve.
and also
keeping in mind that keycloak could come into the party quite
soon.
We need to keep our eyes in Keycloak, but they are still under development, the best
approach is to make clear our needs, ideas and send some code to the project, IMO.
2.
Currently, to generate the register link, we use a private key.
This key is
located in the project[3]. This should not be in the github project
as
pointed by Bruno [4] which make totally sense. I will remove the
private
key from the repo and add instructions to tell how and where to
put your
private key.
But I don't know how to deal for the UPS cartdridge, since we ship
a war,
the private key will be missing. Any ideas input on that is welcome.
I can help on it and change my priorities if necessary, just not sure about the timing for
you guys (I can do it today and make it available tomorrow for testing). Some ideas:
- Automagically generate the property file with the secret key, into this way that would
be per application.
- If we don’t have too much time, provide a script with the steps to upload the keys on
OpenShift (maybe the first step is less confuse)
For 0.10.0, we could just ship a war containing a private key and
add a
warning and maybe add instruction on how to clone the app locally,
change
the key and push again (which is not really user friendly when
you expect
to have a cartdridge that "just work”).
+1 in the worst case scenario
Notice that there is ticket to be able to manage your private key
from the
Admin console[5]
That would be nice
Again, in the future, keycloak could be used also to manage the
keys.
Besides that, the current PR, in terms of functionnalities works
: you can
create and manage users like specified in the specs.
So for the (very soon) 0.10.0 release how shall we deal with these
concerns
?
Looking at UPS roadmap (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH) the date for 0.10.0 is
Wed, right? I think independent of our decision now, the timing is too tight to merge your
PR and release it tomorrow, maybe we should release it on the next week? Or do not merge
that PR?
Sebi
[1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/118
[2]
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/118#discussi...
[3]
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/register_lin...
[4]
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/118#discussi...
[5] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-518
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev