[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0049] Add support for protected tokens

[Nathaniel McCallum]

On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 11:42 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 6.5.2014 17:08, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 09:49 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 12:42 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> >>> This also constitutes a rethinking of the token ACIs after the
> >>> introduction of SELFDN support.
> >>>
> >>> Admins, as before, have full access to all token permissions.
> >>>
> >>> Normal users have read/search/compare access to all of the non-secret
> >>> data for tokens assigned to them, whether protected or non-protected.
> >>> Users can add or delete non-protected tokens and modify most of their
> >>> metadata. However they cannot create, delete or modify protected tokens.
> >>> Regardless of whether the token is protected or not, users cannot change
> >>> a token's ownership or unique identity.
> >>>
> >>> In contrast, admins can create protected tokens. This protects the token
> >>> from deletion or modification when assigned to users. Additionally, when
> >>> a user account is deleted, the assigned non-protected tokens are deleted
> >>> but the protected tokens are merely orphaned. This permits the token to
> >>> be reassigned without having to recreate it. This last point is
> >>> particularly useful in the case of hardware tokens.
> >>>
> >>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4228
> >>>
> >>> NOTE: This patch depends on my patch 0048.
> >>
> >> This new version makes ipatokenDisabled visible for token owners. It is
> >> also writable if the token is non-protected. This additionally fixes:
> >>
> >> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4259
> >
> > This new version changes the way the default value of protected is setup
> > in accordance with the changes made for the review of my patch 0048.2.
> >
> > Nathaniel
> 
> Is using the ipatokenprotected attribute the final design?

No. Alternate designs are welcome. The code is easy enough to modify.

> I did not dig too deep into this, but I think it might be better to 
> instead use the managedby attribute on a token to limit who can delete 
> (or administer in other way) the token. On otptoken-add, managedby would 
> be set to the "whoami" user DN, unless run with --protected, in which 
> case managedby would be left empty. Then, when deleting a user, the 
> token would be deleted only if the user manages the token.

It seems to me that the mechanics of this are roughly the same as
protected, just with a different syntax. The cost of this is more
complex ACIs. In particular, we'd have to use two userdn clauses (is
this possible?) instead of a simple filter. If there is a clear benefit,
we can justify the more obtuse syntax.

Nathaniel