[security-dev] IdentityManager API review
Rodney Russ
rruss at redhat.com
Wed Nov 7 13:29:09 EST 2012
Any reason why a role cannot be granted to just a User?
----- "Shane Bryzak" <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I spent some time reviewing the IdentityManager API today to identify
>
> any redundancies and also locate any holes where we might not properly
>
> support required features, as well as a general "sanity" check to
> ensure
> that what we're exposing via this API makes sense and is intuitive for
>
> consumers. As Anil has pointed out already, our short term priority
> for
> the project is to stabilize the API - this is extremely important as
> PicketLink will provide the security foundation for many other
> projects. With that in mind I'd like to strongly encourage everyone
> with a stake in this to carefully review the API and provide feedback,
>
> as once we release it it will be essentially set in stone.
>
> To try and avoid a wall of text (and make this post easier to reply
> to),
> I'm going to break this post up into sub-sections, one for each
> feature
> group. For each section, I'll include the API as it currently exists,
>
> followed by a brief summary of my thoughts and any recommendations I
> may
> have - this is especially where I want to hear any feedback indicating
>
> whether you agree or disagree with my assessment. Let's start with
> the
> user-related methods:
>
> User management
> -------------------------
>
> User createUser(String name);
>
> void createUser(User user);
>
> void removeUser(User user);
>
> void removeUser(String name);
>
> User getUser(String name);
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. I'm wondering if we should remove the createUser(String) method and
>
> just have createUser(User). This would make sense in a way because I
>
> can't think of many use cases where you might want to create a User
> with
> just a username and not any of the other typical information (such as
>
> first name, last name, e-mail address, etc). Creating a User via
> createUser(String) when you actually want to set the other details
> after
> the initial User creation is also horribly inefficient, requiring
> multiple round trips to the database (or whatever identity store
> backend
> you use). To add to that, the actual parameter name is a little
> unintuitive - "name" could refer to any number of things - is it the
> username or the user's actual name that you need to provide here? My
> +1
> goes to removing createUser(String).
>
> 2. Similar to point 1), having two removeUser() methods seems equally
>
> redundant. The User object that needs to be provided to the
> removeUser(User) method can be easily looked up by calling getUser(),
> as
> per this example:
>
> identityManager.removeUser(identityManager.getUser("jsmith"));
>
> 3. As I also pointed out in point 1), the "name" parameter is a little
>
> unintuitive. In regard to the getUser() method I think we should
> rename
> the "name" parameter to "username" just so it's perfectly clear what
> the
> method expects.
>
> 4. We don't currently have any way to update User details. I
> recommend
> that we add an updateUser() method as follows:
>
> void updateUser(User user);
>
> This will allow User details such as their first and last name, e-mail
>
> address etc to be updated without having to delete and re-create the
> User. Extending on this a little further, I'm wondering if we should
>
> think about adding an audit API that logs these changes. Perhaps it's
>
> something to think about for a later release.
>
> Group management
> --------------------------
>
> Group createGroup(String id);
>
> Group createGroup(String id, Group parent);
>
> Group createGroup(String id, String parent);
>
> void removeGroup(Group group);
>
> void removeGroup(String groupId);
>
> Group getGroup(String groupId);
>
> Group getGroup(String groupId, Group parent);
>
> void addToGroup(IdentityType identityType, Group group);
>
> void removeFromGroup(IdentityType identityType, Group group);
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. I think there is a little bit of ambiguity here in regard to the
> differences between a Group's ID and name. To assist in understanding
>
> the differences, here's the JavaDoc pasted from the Group interface:
>
> /**
> * Groups are stored in tree hierarchy and therefore ID
> represents
> a path. ID string always begins with "/" element that
> * represents root of the tree
> * <p/>
> * Example: Valid IDs are "/acme/departments/marketing",
> "/security/administrator" or "/administrator". Where "acme",
> * "departments", "marketing", "security" and "administrator" are
>
> group names.
> *
> * @return Group Id in String representation.
> */
> String getId();
>
> /**
> * Group name is unique identifier in specific group tree branch.
>
> For example group with id "/acme/departments/marketing"
> * will have name "marketing" and parent group of id
> "/acme/departments"
> *
> * @return name
> */
> String getName();
>
> Taking the above JavaDoc into account, it seems that where we are
> specifying "id" as a method parameter we should be specifying "name"
> instead. If we are indeed providing a "fully qualified" path to the
> createGroup() method, then there is no need to also specify the parent
>
> as it can be easily derived from the path. More on this in the
> following points.
>
> 2. We currently have three createGroup() methods for creating a new
> Group. I think we should remove the (String, String) variant, as the
>
> parent parameter is ambiguous (is it the parent's ID or name we need
> to
> specify here?), and rename the "id" parameter of the (String, Group)
> variant to "name", leaving us with the following:
>
> Group createGroup(String id);
>
> Group createGroup(String name, Group parent);
>
> This then gives us two ways of creating a group. We can either
> specify
> the fully qualified group ID:
>
> Group employees = identityManager.createGroup("/employees");
>
> Or we can specify a subgroup name and parent Group:
>
> Group managers = identityManager.createGroup("managers", employees);
>
> We can also use this second form to create a "root" group by just
> specifying null for the parent:
>
> Group admins = identityManager.createGroup("admins", null);
>
> 3. For the removeGroup() methods, I think what we have is fine.
>
> 4. For the getGroup() methods, I'm happy with the first one (String
> groupId) but I think the second one (String groupId, Group parent)
> needs
> to be (String name, Group parent) instead. The first method would be
>
> used when the fully qualified group ID is known, and the second one
> would be used when you already have the parent Group and know the name
>
> of the subgroup.
>
> 5. The addToGroup() and removeFromGroup() methods seem fine to me.
>
> 6. One thing we don't have is a method to test whether an IdentityType
>
> is a member of a Group. I suggest we add another method to support
> this:
>
> boolean inGroup(IdentityType identityType, Group group);
>
> Roles
> ----------
>
> Role createRole(String name);
>
> void removeRole(Role role);
>
> void removeRole(String name);
>
> Role getRole(String name);
>
> boolean hasRole(Role role, IdentityType identityType, Group
> group);
>
> void grantRole(Role role, IdentityType identityType, Group
> group);
>
> void revokeRole(Role role, IdentityType identityType, Group
> group);
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. I would remove the removeRole(String) method as the same thing can
> be
> achieved with removeRole(getRole(String)).
>
> 2. I would swap the order of the Role and IdentityType parameters
> within
> the hasRole(), grantRole() and revokeRole() methods. As the
> IdentityType is the primary artifact in these operations it makes
> sense
> to have it listed first.
>
> 3. We don't have any explicit support for application roles, which are
>
> roles where there is no Group component (for example, an
> application-wide "admin" role). We could support this by just
> allowing
> hasRole(), grantRole() etc to accept null values for the Group
> parameter, however I feel it would be more semantically correct to
> provide a distinct set of methods for the purpose of supporting
> application roles, as follows:
>
> boolean hasApplicationRole(IdentityType identityType, Role
> role);
>
> void grantApplicationRole(IdentityType identityType, Role role);
>
> void revokeApplicationRole(IdentityType identityType, Role
> role);
>
>
> Query API
> --------------
>
> <T extends IdentityType> IdentityQuery<T> createQuery();
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. After our recent rewrite of the Query API I'm satisfied with what
> we
> have now.
>
> Credential management
> -------------------------------
>
> boolean validateCredential(User user, Credential credential);
>
> void updateCredential(User user, Credential credential);
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. I'm satisfied with what we currently have, however we still need to
>
> review the mechanism that we provide for encoding passwords. I'm not
>
> sure that it will have any effect on these methods though (I'm toying
>
> with the idea of integrating the password encoding functionality via
> the
> IdentityStoreInvocationContext).
>
> Identity expiry
> ------------------
>
> void setEnabled(IdentityType identityType, boolean enabled);
>
> void setExpirationDate(IdentityType identityType, Date
> expirationDate);
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. I think these methods are fine the way they are. One discrepancy
> that I've identified is that a User can be created already being
> disabled or having an expiry date, while for a Role or Group the
> equivalent status must be set via these methods after creation. I'm
> not
> sure this is a big deal though.
>
> Attributes
> -------------
>
> void setAttribute(IdentityType identityType, String
> attributeName,
> String attributeValue);
>
> String getAttribute(IdentityType identityType, String
> attributeName);
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. This area poses a slight dilemma. Currently the API only supports
>
> simple String-based attribute values, however I'm pretty sure that
> people are going to want to store all sorts of things, ranging from
> boolean and Date values through to large byte arrays that store a
> User's
> photograph or other data. If everyone is in agreement that we need to
>
> support more than just String values, then the first thing we probably
>
> need to do is modify these methods to work with a Serializable
> instead.
>
> 2. If we all agree on point 1), the next thing we need to decide is
> whether we want the capability to make some attribute values "lazy
> loaded". If we want to do a quick lookup of a User object for the
> express purpose of assigning a Role or Group membership (or any other
>
> type of simple operation) then we probably don't want the performance
>
> hit of having to load bulky attribute data.
>
> 3. With the above two points in mind, I'm going to hold off on
> surmising
> any further on attributes until some of you guys weigh in with your
> opinions. I do have some rough ideas, however I'll wait until we have
> a
> consensus of exactly what we want to achieve here before we proceed
> further.
>
> Utility methods
> --------------------
>
> IdentityType lookupIdentityByKey(String key);
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 1. This method is required by other features, such as the Permissions
>
> API. I'm fine with what we have here.
>
> In summary
> ----------------
>
> I apologise for yet another epic e-mail to the list, however this is
> everyone's chance to review the API for themselves and decide whether
> or
> not it will be suitable for addressing all of your requirements. I'd
>
> like to get this API stable by next week so please don't be shy about
>
> speaking up. I'm especially looking forward to hearing your opinions
>
> about how we handle attributes (there may even be some relevant
> JSR-351
> stuff that we should be looking at here).
>
> Thanks,
> Shane
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
More information about the security-dev
mailing list