November 2008 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

The alternate approach still has the disadvantage of being late with security policy enforcement. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188244#4188244 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188244

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : "anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : Additionally we can retain security.xml enabled. We should make it do the replacement work only if JBoss was started with a SM. | | | | I mean your original proposal of injecting the security manager in the security.xml needs to be removed and the replacement of protectiondomain becomes its objective. | | I'm sorry you've lost me again. | conf/security.xml is an alternate to having to use the system properties. | | I created it because it is easier to configure than having to remember | to specify system properties on the command line and avoids the vfs url | parsing problem. | | Going forward conf/security.xml is what we want since it enables configuration | (including our own security policy) from the profile service and therefore | the management console. | | I've got no idea what you mean about replacing the protection domain? | The protection domain is loaded from the security policy using the codesource url. | | The discussion above is about which codesource to use | and automatically augmenting the returned permission collection | with read access for the VFS, file, etc. from where we loaded the class | (which can be different to the logical codesource - e.g. a copy of a nested jar into temp). Sorry for having misunderstood. It made sense now. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188239#4188239 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188239

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by adrian＠jboss.org

"anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : Additionally we can retain security.xml enabled. We should make it do the replacement work only if JBoss was started with a SM. | | I mean your original proposal of injecting the security manager in the security.xml needs to be removed and the replacement of protectiondomain becomes its objective. I'm sorry you've lost me again. conf/security.xml is an alternate to having to use the system properties. I created it because it is easier to configure than having to remember to specify system properties on the command line and avoids the vfs url parsing problem. Going forward conf/security.xml is what we want since it enables configuration (including our own security policy) from the profile service and therefore the management console. I've got no idea what you mean about replacing the protection domain? The protection domain is loaded from the security policy using the codesource url. The discussion above is about which codesource to use and automatically augmenting the returned permission collection with read access for the VFS, file, etc. from where we loaded the class (which can be different to the logical codesource - e.g. a copy of a nested jar into temp). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188236#4188236 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188236

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

Additionally we can retain security.xml enabled. We should make it do the replacement work only if JBoss was started with a SM. I mean your original proposal of injecting the security manager in the security.xml needs to be removed and the replacement of protectiondomain becomes its objective. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188231#4188231 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188231

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : "anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | We could try to make this intelligent? i.e. use the real url by default | | but then switch it if you configure conf/security.xml | | | | We can do that. It essentially boils down to a temporary state (with usage of real urls) to get past the classloading bootstrap. | | Do you see any other issues post security.xml bootstrap? | | I think the security.xml step would need to replace the protection domain of previously added real vfs codesource. Is that consistent with your thinking? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188227#4188227 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188227

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by adrian＠jboss.org

"anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : | It is not clear how to configure the VFSClassLoaderPolicy. Is it via the classloader-system or the class loading? ClassLoadingMetaData. Although being able to specify which url type to use for the codesource somewhere once would make it easier. We could try to make this intelligent? i.e. use the real url by default but then switch it if you configure conf/security.xml View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188222#4188222 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188222

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | | 1) The ability to map a vfs url to a real (top level) url | | | | This requires something in the VFS, my suggestion was to add | VFSUtils.getRealURL(vfsFile); | | anonymous wrote : | | 2) Implementation of a VFSPermission that also implies the real url permission | | (e.g. FilePermission for vfsfile:) | | | | This is also in the VFS, in the url handlers. | | anonymous wrote : | | 3) The option when you create a vfs classloader to specify whether to use | | (i) the vfs url or (ii) the real url as the codesource. | | Either way, we should include the VFSPermission in the ProtectionDomain | | of the class defined by the VFSClassLoaderPolicy. | | | | This is in the VFSClassLoaderPolicy and it is a simple boolean | to control which codeSourceURL to use. | It also requires adding root.toURL().openConnection().getPermission() | to the permissions of the protection domain (assuming it is not the | default AllPermission like it currently is now for vfs urls). https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBNAME-8 We got JNDIPermissions from Scott recently. I think the VFSPermission should follow this format. It is not clear how to configure the VFSClassLoaderPolicy. Is it via the classloader-system or the class loading? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188218#4188218 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188218

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Scheduled and management messages

by timfox

I have changed and simplified the code so management messages and scheduled messages are sent using exact same API as normal messages, and are not treated any differently in paging or in the journal. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188202#4188202 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188202

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Any reason why producer auto group id is generated on th

by timfox

I fixed this and removed other related redundant code View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188201#4188201 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188201

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

Adrian, I agree with whatever you said. I do not like the security.xml approach because you have not shielded the initialize.xml and classloading.xml bootstrap. Where are the controls for these? The default java.policy? I think it does not kick in because we have not enabled the SM. Please correct me if I missed something. :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188199#4188199 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188199

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums November 2008