|
| 1 | +=================== |
| 2 | +Security Mechanisms |
| 3 | +=================== |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +:Version: $Revision: 1.16 $ |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +Current situation |
| 8 | +================= |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +Current logical controls: |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +ANONYMOUS_ACCESS = 'deny' |
| 13 | + Deny or allow anonymous access to the web interface |
| 14 | +ANONYMOUS_REGISTER = 'deny' |
| 15 | + Deny or allow anonymous users to register through the web interface |
| 16 | +ANONYMOUS_REGISTER_MAIL = 'deny' |
| 17 | + Deny or allow anonymous users to register through the mail interface |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +Current user interface authentication and controls: |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +- command-line tool access controlled with passwords, but no logical controls |
| 22 | +- CGI access is by username and password and has some logical controls |
| 23 | +- mailgw access is through identification using sender email address, with |
| 24 | + limited functionality available |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +The web interface implements has specific logical controls, |
| 27 | +preventing non-admin users from accessing: |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | + - other user's details pages |
| 30 | + - listing the base classes (not issues or their user page) |
| 31 | + - editing base classes |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +Issues |
| 34 | +====== |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +1. The current implementation is ad-hoc, and not complete for all `use cases`_. |
| 37 | +2. Currently it is not possible to allow submission of issues through email |
| 38 | + but restrict those users from accessing the web interface. |
| 39 | +3. Only one user may perform admin functions. |
| 40 | +4. There is no verification of users in the mail gateway by any means other |
| 41 | + than the From address. Support for strong identification through digital |
| 42 | + signatures should be added. |
| 43 | +5. The command-line tool has no logical controls. |
| 44 | +6. The anonymous control needs revising - there should only be one way to be |
| 45 | + an anonymous user, not two (currently there is user==None and |
| 46 | + user=='anonymous'). |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +Possible approaches |
| 50 | +=================== |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +Security controls in Roundup could be approached in three ways: |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +1) at the hyperdb level, with read/write/modify permissions on classes, items |
| 55 | + and item properties for all or specific transitions. |
| 56 | +2) at the user interface level, with access permissions on CGI interface |
| 57 | + methods, mailgw methods, roundup-admin methods, and so on. |
| 58 | +3) at a logical permission level, checked as needed. |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +In all cases, the security built into roundup assumes restricted access to the |
| 61 | +hyperdatabase itself, through Operating System controls such as user or group |
| 62 | +permissions. |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +Hyperdb-level control |
| 66 | +--------------------- |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +Control is implemented at the Class.get, Class.set and Class.create level. All |
| 69 | +other methods must access items through these methods. Since all accesses go |
| 70 | +through the database, we can implement deny by default. |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +Pros: |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | + - easier to implement as it only affects one module |
| 75 | + - smaller number of permissions to worry about |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +Cons: |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | + - harder to determine the relationship between user interaction and hyperdb |
| 80 | + permission. |
| 81 | + - a lot of work to define |
| 82 | + - must special-case to handle by-item permissions (editing user details, |
| 83 | + having private messages) |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +User-interface control |
| 87 | +---------------------- |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +The user interfaces would have an extra layer between that which |
| 90 | +parses the request to determine action and the action method. This layer |
| 91 | +controls access. Since it is possible to require methods be registered |
| 92 | +with the security mechanisms to be accessed by the user, deny by default |
| 93 | +is possible. |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +Pros: |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | + - much more obvious at the user level what the controls are |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +Cons: |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | + - much more work to implement |
| 102 | + - most user interfaces have multiple uses which can't be covered by a |
| 103 | + single permission |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +Logical control |
| 106 | +--------------- |
| 107 | + |
| 108 | +At each point that requires an action to be performed, the security mechanisms |
| 109 | +are asked if the current user has permission. Since code must call the |
| 110 | +check function to raise a denial, there is no possibility to have automatic |
| 111 | +default of deny in this situation. |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +Pros: |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | + - quite obvious what is going on |
| 116 | + - is very similar to the current system |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +Cons: |
| 119 | + |
| 120 | + - large number of possible permissions that may be defined, possibly |
| 121 | + mirroring actual user interface controls. |
| 122 | + - access to the hyperdb must be strictly controlled through program code |
| 123 | + that implements the logical controls. |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | + |
| 126 | +Action |
| 127 | +====== |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +The CGI interface must be changed to: |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +- authenticate over a secure connection |
| 132 | +- use unique tokens as a result of authentication, rather than pass the user's |
| 133 | + real credentials (username/password) around for each request (this means |
| 134 | + sessions and hence a session database) |
| 135 | +- use the new logical control mechanisms |
| 136 | + |
| 137 | + - implement the permission module |
| 138 | + - implement a Role editing interface for users |
| 139 | + - implement htmltemplate tests on permissions |
| 140 | + - switch all code over from using config vars for permission checks to using |
| 141 | + permissions |
| 142 | + - change all explicit admin user checks for Role checks |
| 143 | + - include config vars for initial Roles for anonymous web, new web and new |
| 144 | + email users |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +The mail gateway must be changed to: |
| 147 | + |
| 148 | +- use digital signatures |
| 149 | +- use the new logical control mechanisms |
| 150 | + |
| 151 | + - switch all code over from using config vars for permission checks to using |
| 152 | + permissions |
| 153 | + |
| 154 | +The command-line tool must be changed to: |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +- use the new logical control mechanisms (only allowing write |
| 157 | + access by admin users, and read-only by everyone else) |
| 158 | + |
| 159 | + |
0 commit comments