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

[Dmitri Pal]

On 05/07/2014 09:05 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> 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.

We usually try not to create new attributes until it is fully justified.
I would like Simo to chime in on this.

> Nathaniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-devel mailing list
> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel


-- 
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager IdM portfolio
Red Hat, Inc.