Re: [security-dev] Authorization constructs in PicketLink3

Also I feel we should provide pluggable means for: a) IDM based permission model (Shane) b) Drools based Rules Open Ended Authorization c) XACML based Open Ended Authorization (Anil) On 05/07/2013 04:30 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote: > I am supportive of your ideas, Pedro. > > Unlike authentication, we need to remember that authorization is > pretty domain specific. There is no magic bullet for > rules/permissions. Ideally, as discussed before we should provide the > opportunity to plug in custom authorization schemes. > > On 05/07/2013 03:12 PM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: >> As I have replied before, maybe the same arguments used to put the >> DIGEST/BASIC authc filter into picketlink-api are also valid for the >> this filter. >> >> We also need to think how the configuration would be, because we need >> to provide to the filter the URI patterns vs Roles mapping. >> >> As @pmuir said, the web.xml init-params should be avoided. As an >> alternative, we can: >> >> - Provide a class like javax.ws.rs.core.Application where users >> can override some methods to provide additional security config (we >> can use that not only for authorization) >> - Use a @Producer method to return a specific instance with the >> authz configuration. >> - Use a @Qualifier (or only some interface) in order to be able >> to inject a specific bean that implements an interface with some >> methods that can be used to obtain the configuration. >> >> Makes sense ? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:40:50 PM >> Subject: Re: [security-dev] Authorization constructs in PicketLink3 >> >> Any objections to adding the access control filters to the core module? >> >> On 05/02/2013 11:38 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote: >> >> >> >> That is fine. Timo should be secured with PicketLink Core alone. Right >> now, authz classes are the missing bits. >> >> On 05/02/2013 10:56 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: >> >> >> >>> I remember Shane saying that he is going to take a look at the >>> permissions api, mainly after the latest changes to the idm/core >>> apis. > > I can start looking at that too, if necessary. Maybe >>> providing some test cases to see the gaps (also provide some tests >>> for the authentication stuff). > > ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: >>> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 12:31:26 >>> PM > Subject: Re: [security-dev] Authorization constructs in >>> PicketLink3 > > Right Pete - I do mention in the thread. I was >>> referring to users > wanting alternative authorization mechanisms >>> such as > that driven by Drools (as in Seam2) and maybe XACML. :) >>> Ideally, the > default authz mechanism by the rbac filter > should >>> be the permissions module. > > On 05/02/2013 10:24 AM, Pete Muir wrote: >> >>>> Isn't this what the permissions module is for (API/SPI for >>>> authorisation)? I know it's not finished, but I think we have time >>>> to do that for 3.0… >> >> We then add things like the RBAC filter >>>> delegating to it. >> >> On 2 May 2013, at 16:21, Anil Saldhana >>>> <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >>>>> That is what I meant by pluggable. But we need to be aware of >>> >>>>> dependencies getting pulled into core. We >>> do not want a >>>>> dependency on drools, for example, to use core. If users >>> want >>>>> some particular authz stuff, >>> they should be able to pull in >>>>> those dependencies. >>> >>> I do not know yet how to get that >>>>> done. ;) >>> >>> On 05/02/2013 09:54 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: >> >>>>>> Maybe something we started with PicketBox, using Drools for >>>>>> rule-based authz, pluggable authz managers, etc. >>>> >>>> JBoss >>>>>> Seam 2 also supports Drools for authorization .... >>>> >>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Anil Saldhana" >>>>>> <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:38:40 AM >>>> Subject: Re: >>>>>> [security-dev] Authorization constructs in PicketLink3 >>>> >>>> >>>>>> We have to remember the permission model work using IDM. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wonder if this filter can use pluggable authorization >>>>>> mechanisms, then >>>> maybe the perfect start. >>>> >>>> On >>>>>> 05/02/2013 09:36 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: >> >>>>>>> I was looking at the >>>>>>> org.picketlink.authentication.web.AuthenticationFilter. This >>>>>>> class resides on core-api and we did it given some input from AG >>>>>>> for DIGEST and BASIC authentication. >>>>> >>>>> Wondering if >>>>>>> the authz filter we did for TIMO does not fit in the same case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Anil >>>>>>> Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> To: >>>>>>> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 >>>>>>> 11:42:25 AM >>>>> Subject: [security-dev] Authorization >>>>>>> constructs in PicketLink3 >>>>> >>>>> Shane/Pedro - we should >>>>>>> start discussing the constructs for >>>>> authorization in PL3. >>>>>>> We have a few options on the table. We need to >>>>> figure out >>>>>>> what we need such that for PL3 users, we have some options. >>>>>>>>>>>> Lets use this thread to figure out the various >>>>>>> options/strategies. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ security-dev mailing list security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev