3 Replies Latest reply on Jun 15, 2007 10:53 AM by David Lloyd

    security in the console

    Tom Baeyens Master

      i think it is a plus that the webapp can also work without security. but i would like the security to be reinstalled in the console by default. also we should make sure that there is a user for each role: admin, user and manager.

      only that way we can add some scenarios in the documentation, movies or tutorials and show how the console presents itself to those roles and in those scenarios.

      especially the task list feature is something that we can't show properly if users don't need to log in.

      the way i interpreted the feedback of the se's that we should add more focus to admins, not limit the console to administrators as seems to be the case now.

      i think that exposing the usernames and passwords on the home page is good. then it's good for evaluation purposes. and also people know immediately that you can't put this into production as is. with the god identity management UI that you've added, people can easily delete all users and avoid that security risk.

        • 1. Re: security in the console
          Tom Baeyens Master

          i also removed the comments in the web.xml about the security warning around the gpd deployment servlet. that should be in the documentation, i think.

          in 3.2.1 it's doing to take to long to fix this as we would have to fork and make a new release of the old designer. so in 3.2.1, i still want an open gpd deployment servlet and a warning is most appropriate in the release notes, i think.

          then in 3.2.2, i want the GPD to add authentication info to the request that uploads the servlet and the servlet should be secured. then, users can control the authorization by just logging into the webapp and removing the gpd user.

          this plays out nicely with the users on the login page. cause when people remove the users, then nobody will be allowed to upload a new process definition.

          btw, it would be good if you could add minimal documentation for the console in the user guide. 2 or 3 pages is already a good start. it could cover deployment and usage.

          • 2. Re: security in the console
            David Lloyd Master

             

            "tom.baeyens@jboss.com" wrote:
            i think that exposing the usernames and passwords on the home page is good. then it's good for evaluation purposes. and also people know immediately that you can't put this into production as is. with the god identity management UI that you've added, people can easily delete all users and avoid that security risk.


            But you can put this into production as is! That's the whole point. Just change the config files.

            Putting the user names on the login page means that the user actually has to change the xhtml to put this into production. I think that this steps over the line and makes the console worse for both evaluation and deployment. It's a far greater benefit to the end user to just drop it in to their development environment and immediately become productive. I believe it's more valuable for our customers as well.

            • 3. Re: security in the console
              David Lloyd Master

               

              "tom.baeyens@jboss.com" wrote:
              i also removed the comments in the web.xml about the security warning around the gpd deployment servlet. that should be in the documentation, i think.


              Fine, we can put it in the documentation - but we should also put it back in the web.xml. It does no harm being there, and it is an important indication that there is a security issue. Which there is. With security, you can not have too many warnings.