Add user attributes to thin clients

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

>  Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer = false
is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external metadata
Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have typeId,
field ids and positions.
There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this mode,
full type name is included in the binary object.
However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be present to
deserialize.
That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the handshake: in
most cases they can't be decoded.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
>
> ```
>
> BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
>
>   BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
>
>   // descriptor transportation fails here
>
>   ...
>
>   desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
>
> }
>
> ```
>
> чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
>
> > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary values
> > to
> > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side
> >
> > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes. What's the
> use
> > case?
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor check.
> > >
> > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer = false
> is
> > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> metadata.
> > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > >
> > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary values
> > to
> > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > >
> > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all those
> thin
> > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects in user
> > > > attributes.
> > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > >
> > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird and
> dirty.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor
> check.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add some
> > features
> > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any language can
> > send
> > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform complex data
> > > > structures,
> > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[], will try
> to
> > > use
> > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing class
> > descriptor.
> > > > But
> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we write binary
> > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can get objects
> > with
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary marshaller
> > will
> > > > works
> > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can be used
> to
> > > pass
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then display
> this
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such approach
> (Oracle
> > > DB,
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package, PostgreeSQL
> have
> > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and application
> > > information
> > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely limit
> > attribute
> > > > types
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary marshaller can't
> > send
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying to
> > understand
> > > > the
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going on (left a
> > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients in Python,
> > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add some
> > > features
> > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The approach with UserAttributes map looks dirty to me
> > and
> > > > raises
> > > > > > > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - Why is UserAttributes property related to
> > authentication?
> > > > > > > > > > > - UserAttributes name implies that users can put there
> > > > anything
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > > but what for? What are those additional use cases?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should focus on a specific problem at hand
> and
> > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > unnecessary future-proofing.
> > > > > > > > > > > What are current and potential future custom
> > authenticators
> > > > and
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > of data do they need?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should add this. It will provide an extra
> > level
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > security.
> > > > > > > > > > >> This approach is used in many products, for example in
> > AWS
> > > > > > (MFA).
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Sometimes single authentication factor is not
> enough.
> > > > > > Attributes
> > > > > > > > > > >> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Token can be sent instead of a password (like git
> > > works
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > tokens).
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > For now I don't see a reason to include attributes
> > > into
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One does not send security certificate as
> > attribute.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > obtain
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > peer security certificate is to ask SSL engine
> to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be useful
> with
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > > > > >> which is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This map is something like user object from
> > > > > > > > > > `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not enough
> for
> > > > security
> > > > > > > > > checks.
> > > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, we can send security certificate and
> > > > validate
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you please explain your use case?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is the
> > motivation
> > > of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the problem,
> can
> > > you
> > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> in more
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map with
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM Dmitrii
> > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility of sending
> > > user
> > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > >> attributes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside custom
> > > > > > authenticator
> > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded binary
> > writer
> > > > for
> > > > > > > JDBC
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a classes in
> the
> > > JDK
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties, and
> tries
> > to
> > > > sync
> > > > > > > > > > >> notdeclared
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because current
> > > > classloading
> > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > >> discovery.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer and allow
> > only
> > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent
> unexpected
> > > > fails. I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with heavy
> > > > classloading.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin attributes to
> > > > primitives
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> 'String'?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > >> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >
> >
>

[Dmitrii Ryabov]

Ok, if no one have objections, I will restrict a map by strings only.

чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 17:20 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:

> >  Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer = false
> is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external metadata
> Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have typeId,
> field ids and positions.
> There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this mode,
> full type name is included in the binary object.
> However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be present to
> deserialize.
> That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the handshake: in
> most cases they can't be decoded.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
> >
> > ```
> >
> > BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
> >
> >   BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
> >
> >   // descriptor transportation fails here
> >
> >   ...
> >
> >   desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
> >
> > }
> >
> > ```
> >
> > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> values
> > > to
> > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side
> > >
> > > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes. What's the
> > use
> > > case?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor check.
> > > >
> > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> false
> > is
> > > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > metadata.
> > > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > > >
> > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> values
> > > to
> > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all those
> > thin
> > > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects in user
> > > > > attributes.
> > > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird and
> > dirty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor
> > check.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add some
> > > features
> > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any language
> can
> > > send
> > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform complex data
> > > > > structures,
> > > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[], will
> try
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing class
> > > descriptor.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we write
> binary
> > > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can get
> objects
> > > with
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary
> marshaller
> > > will
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can be used
> > to
> > > > pass
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then display
> > this
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such approach
> > (Oracle
> > > > DB,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package, PostgreeSQL
> > have
> > > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and application
> > > > information
> > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely limit
> > > attribute
> > > > > types
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary marshaller can't
> > > send
> > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying to
> > > understand
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going on (left
> a
> > > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients in
> Python,
> > > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add some
> > > > features
> > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The approach with UserAttributes map looks dirty to
> me
> > > and
> > > > > raises
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Why is UserAttributes property related to
> > > authentication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > - UserAttributes name implies that users can put
> there
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but what for? What are those additional use cases?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should focus on a specific problem at hand
> > and
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > unnecessary future-proofing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What are current and potential future custom
> > > authenticators
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > of data do they need?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should add this. It will provide an extra
> > > level
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > security.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This approach is used in many products, for example
> in
> > > AWS
> > > > > > > (MFA).
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sometimes single authentication factor is not
> > enough.
> > > > > > > Attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Token can be sent instead of a password (like
> git
> > > > works
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > tokens).
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > For now I don't see a reason to include
> attributes
> > > > into
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya Kasnacheev
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One does not send security certificate as
> > > attribute.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > peer security certificate is to ask SSL engine
> > to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be useful
> > with
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> which is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This map is something like user object from
> > > > > > > > > > > `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not enough
> > for
> > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > checks.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, we can send security certificate
> and
> > > > > validate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you please explain your use case?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is the
> > > motivation
> > > > of
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the problem,
> > can
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> in more
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map with
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM Dmitrii
> > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility of
> sending
> > > > user
> > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > >> attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside custom
> > > > > > > authenticator
> > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded binary
> > > writer
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > JDBC
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a classes in
> > the
> > > > JDK
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties, and
> > tries
> > > to
> > > > > sync
> > > > > > > > > > > >> notdeclared
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because current
> > > > > classloading
> > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > >> discovery.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer and allow
> > > only
> > > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent
> > unexpected
> > > > > fails. I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with heavy
> > > > > classloading.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin attributes
> to
> > > > > primitives
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 'String'?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Igor Sapego]

Dmitrii,

I'm not a security expert, but I have a concern about the usage
of common purpose mechanism for authentication purposes.

I mean any other component seem to be able to get this data which
should be private. Looks like a dangerous hack to me, to be honest.

Maybe we should create and use some kind of "security context" for
this purpose with limited access.

Best Regards,
Igor


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:29 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Ok, if no one have objections, I will restrict a map by strings only.
>
> чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 17:20 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
>
> > >  Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer = false
> > is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> metadata
> > Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have typeId,
> > field ids and positions.
> > There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this mode,
> > full type name is included in the binary object.
> > However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be present
> to
> > deserialize.
> > That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the handshake: in
> > most cases they can't be decoded.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
> > >
> > >   BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
> > >
> > >   // descriptor transportation fails here
> > >
> > >   ...
> > >
> > >   desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> > values
> > > > to
> > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side
> > > >
> > > > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes. What's
> the
> > > use
> > > > case?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor
> check.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> > false
> > > is
> > > > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > > metadata.
> > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > > > >
> > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> > values
> > > > to
> > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability side.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all those
> > > thin
> > > > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects in
> user
> > > > > > attributes.
> > > > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird and
> > > dirty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor
> > > check.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add some
> > > > features
> > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any language
> > can
> > > > send
> > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform complex
> data
> > > > > > structures,
> > > > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[], will
> > try
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing class
> > > > descriptor.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we write
> > binary
> > > > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can get
> > objects
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary
> > marshaller
> > > > will
> > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can be
> used
> > > to
> > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then
> display
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such approach
> > > (Oracle
> > > > > DB,
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package,
> PostgreeSQL
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and application
> > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely limit
> > > > attribute
> > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary marshaller
> can't
> > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying to
> > > > understand
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going on
> (left
> > a
> > > > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients in
> > Python,
> > > > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add
> some
> > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The approach with UserAttributes map looks dirty to
> > me
> > > > and
> > > > > > raises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why is UserAttributes property related to
> > > > authentication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - UserAttributes name implies that users can put
> > there
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but what for? What are those additional use cases?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should focus on a specific problem at
> hand
> > > and
> > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unnecessary future-proofing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What are current and potential future custom
> > > > authenticators
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of data do they need?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should add this. It will provide an
> extra
> > > > level
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > security.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This approach is used in many products, for
> example
> > in
> > > > AWS
> > > > > > > > (MFA).
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sometimes single authentication factor is not
> > > enough.
> > > > > > > > Attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Token can be sent instead of a password (like
> > git
> > > > > works
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > tokens).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > For now I don't see a reason to include
> > attributes
> > > > > into
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya
> Kasnacheev
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One does not send security certificate as
> > > > attribute.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > peer security certificate is to ask SSL
> engine
> > > to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be useful
> > > with
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii Ryabov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This map is something like user object
> from
> > > > > > > > > > > > `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not
> enough
> > > for
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > checks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, we can send security certificate
> > and
> > > > > > validate
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you please explain your use case?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is the
> > > > motivation
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Pavel
> > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the
> problem,
> > > can
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> in more
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map with
> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM
> Dmitrii
> > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility of
> > sending
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside
> custom
> > > > > > > > authenticator
> > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded
> binary
> > > > writer
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > JDBC
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a classes
> in
> > > the
> > > > > JDK
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties, and
> > > tries
> > > > to
> > > > > > sync
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> notdeclared
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because current
> > > > > > classloading
> > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> discovery.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer and
> allow
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent
> > > unexpected
> > > > > > fails. I
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with heavy
> > > > > > classloading.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin attributes
> > to
> > > > > > primitives
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'String'?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

We already have several "security contexts" and we even have some code
which tries to clear sensitive data from it.

However, it is no good for authenticating nodes anyway, since discovery
message have to travel via ring, so all server nodes will have access to
sensitive information.

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 11:41, Igor Sapego <[hidden email]>:

> Dmitrii,
>
> I'm not a security expert, but I have a concern about the usage
> of common purpose mechanism for authentication purposes.
>
> I mean any other component seem to be able to get this data which
> should be private. Looks like a dangerous hack to me, to be honest.
>
> Maybe we should create and use some kind of "security context" for
> this purpose with limited access.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:29 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, if no one have objections, I will restrict a map by strings only.
> >
> > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 17:20 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > >  Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> false
> > > is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > metadata
> > > Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have
> typeId,
> > > field ids and positions.
> > > There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this
> mode,
> > > full type name is included in the binary object.
> > > However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be
> present
> > to
> > > deserialize.
> > > That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the handshake: in
> > > most cases they can't be decoded.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
> > > >
> > > >   BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
> > > >
> > > >   // descriptor transportation fails here
> > > >
> > > >   ...
> > > >
> > > >   desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> > > values
> > > > > to
> > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> side
> > > > >
> > > > > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes. What's
> > the
> > > > use
> > > > > case?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor
> > check.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> > > false
> > > > is
> > > > > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > > > metadata.
> > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode binary
> > > values
> > > > > to
> > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> side.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all
> those
> > > > thin
> > > > > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects in
> > user
> > > > > > > attributes.
> > > > > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird and
> > > > dirty.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class
> descriptor
> > > > check.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add
> some
> > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any
> language
> > > can
> > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform complex
> > data
> > > > > > > structures,
> > > > > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[],
> will
> > > try
> > > > to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing class
> > > > > descriptor.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we write
> > > binary
> > > > > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can get
> > > objects
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary
> > > marshaller
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can be
> > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then
> > display
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such approach
> > > > (Oracle
> > > > > > DB,
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package,
> > PostgreeSQL
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and application
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely limit
> > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary marshaller
> > can't
> > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying to
> > > > > understand
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going on
> > (left
> > > a
> > > > > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients in
> > > Python,
> > > > > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add
> > some
> > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The approach with UserAttributes map looks dirty
> to
> > > me
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > raises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why is UserAttributes property related to
> > > > > authentication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - UserAttributes name implies that users can put
> > > there
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but what for? What are those additional use
> cases?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should focus on a specific problem at
> > hand
> > > > and
> > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unnecessary future-proofing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are current and potential future custom
> > > > > authenticators
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of data do they need?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should add this. It will provide an
> > extra
> > > > > level
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > security.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This approach is used in many products, for
> > example
> > > in
> > > > > AWS
> > > > > > > > > (MFA).
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sometimes single authentication factor is not
> > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > Attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Token can be sent instead of a password
> (like
> > > git
> > > > > > works
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > tokens).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > For now I don't see a reason to include
> > > attributes
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya
> > Kasnacheev
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One does not send security certificate as
> > > > > attribute.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > peer security certificate is to ask SSL
> > engine
> > > > to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be
> useful
> > > > with
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii
> Ryabov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This map is something like user object
> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not
> > enough
> > > > for
> > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > checks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, we can send security
> certificate
> > > and
> > > > > > > validate
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you please explain your use case?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is the
> > > > > motivation
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Pavel
> > > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the
> > problem,
> > > > can
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map
> with
> > > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM
> > Dmitrii
> > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility of
> > > sending
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside
> > custom
> > > > > > > > > authenticator
> > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded
> > binary
> > > > > writer
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > JDBC
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a classes
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > JDK
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties,
> and
> > > > tries
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > sync
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> notdeclared
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because current
> > > > > > > classloading
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discovery.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer and
> > allow
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent
> > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > fails. I
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with heavy
> > > > > > > classloading.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin
> attributes
> > > to
> > > > > > > primitives
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'String'?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Igor Sapego-2]

Ilya,

The fact that we have some security holes does not sound to me
like a good reason to create a new one.

Best Regards,
Igor


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:22 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> We already have several "security contexts" and we even have some code
> which tries to clear sensitive data from it.
>
> However, it is no good for authenticating nodes anyway, since discovery
> message have to travel via ring, so all server nodes will have access to
> sensitive information.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 11:41, Igor Sapego <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Dmitrii,
> >
> > I'm not a security expert, but I have a concern about the usage
> > of common purpose mechanism for authentication purposes.
> >
> > I mean any other component seem to be able to get this data which
> > should be private. Looks like a dangerous hack to me, to be honest.
> >
> > Maybe we should create and use some kind of "security context" for
> > this purpose with limited access.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:29 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, if no one have objections, I will restrict a map by strings only.
> > >
> > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 17:20 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > >  Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> > false
> > > > is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > > metadata
> > > > Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have
> > typeId,
> > > > field ids and positions.
> > > > There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this
> > mode,
> > > > full type name is included in the binary object.
> > > > However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be
> > present
> > > to
> > > > deserialize.
> > > > That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the handshake:
> in
> > > > most cases they can't be decoded.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
> > > > >
> > > > >   BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
> > > > >
> > > > >   // descriptor transportation fails here
> > > > >
> > > > >   ...
> > > > >
> > > > >   desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode
> binary
> > > > values
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> > side
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes.
> What's
> > > the
> > > > > use
> > > > > > case?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class descriptor
> > > check.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer
> =
> > > > false
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode
> binary
> > > > values
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> > side.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all
> > those
> > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects in
> > > user
> > > > > > > > attributes.
> > > > > > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird
> and
> > > > > dirty.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class
> > descriptor
> > > > > check.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add
> > some
> > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any
> > language
> > > > can
> > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform complex
> > > data
> > > > > > > > structures,
> > > > > > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[],
> > will
> > > > try
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing class
> > > > > > descriptor.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we
> write
> > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can get
> > > > objects
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary
> > > > marshaller
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can
> be
> > > used
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then
> > > display
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such
> approach
> > > > > (Oracle
> > > > > > > DB,
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package,
> > > PostgreeSQL
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and
> application
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely
> limit
> > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary marshaller
> > > can't
> > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying
> to
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going on
> > > (left
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients in
> > > > Python,
> > > > > > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add
> > > some
> > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The approach with UserAttributes map looks
> dirty
> > to
> > > > me
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > raises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why is UserAttributes property related to
> > > > > > authentication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - UserAttributes name implies that users can
> put
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but what for? What are those additional use
> > cases?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should focus on a specific problem
> at
> > > hand
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unnecessary future-proofing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are current and potential future custom
> > > > > > authenticators
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of data do they need?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita
> Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should add this. It will provide an
> > > extra
> > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > security.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This approach is used in many products, for
> > > example
> > > > in
> > > > > > AWS
> > > > > > > > > > (MFA).
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey Kuznetsov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sometimes single authentication factor is
> not
> > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > Attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Token can be sent instead of a password
> > (like
> > > > git
> > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > tokens).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > For now I don't see a reason to include
> > > > attributes
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya
> > > Kasnacheev
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One does not send security certificate
> as
> > > > > > attribute.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > peer security certificate is to ask SSL
> > > engine
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be
> > useful
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii
> > Ryabov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This map is something like user object
> > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not
> > > enough
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > checks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, we can send security
> > certificate
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > validate
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor
> Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you please explain your use
> case?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is the
> > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM
> Pavel
> > > > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the
> > > problem,
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map
> > with
> > > > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM
> > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility of
> > > > sending
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside
> > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > authenticator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded
> > > binary
> > > > > > writer
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > JDBC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a
> classes
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > JDK
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties,
> > and
> > > > > tries
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > sync
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> notdeclared
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because
> current
> > > > > > > > classloading
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discovery.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer and
> > > allow
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent
> > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > fails. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with
> heavy
> > > > > > > > classloading.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin
> > attributes
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > primitives
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'String'?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Igor,

I see nothing criminal in attribute visibility to internal Ignite
components. It could be a hole if attributes were available through public
API.


вт, 28 янв. 2020 г., 13:07 Igor Sapego <[hidden email]>:

> Ilya,
>
> The fact that we have some security holes does not sound to me
> like a good reason to create a new one.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:22 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > We already have several "security contexts" and we even have some code
> > which tries to clear sensitive data from it.
> >
> > However, it is no good for authenticating nodes anyway, since discovery
> > message have to travel via ring, so all server nodes will have access to
> > sensitive information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 11:41, Igor Sapego <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Dmitrii,
> > >
> > > I'm not a security expert, but I have a concern about the usage
> > > of common purpose mechanism for authentication purposes.
> > >
> > > I mean any other component seem to be able to get this data which
> > > should be private. Looks like a dangerous hack to me, to be honest.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should create and use some kind of "security context" for
> > > this purpose with limited access.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:29 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, if no one have objections, I will restrict a map by strings only.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 17:20 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > >  Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact footer =
> > > false
> > > > > is totally standalone entity and can be read without any external
> > > > metadata
> > > > > Not exactly: type name and field names are unknown, you only have
> > > typeId,
> > > > > field ids and positions.
> > > > > There is one more Marshaller "mode": UNREGISTERED_TYPE_ID. In this
> > > mode,
> > > > > full type name is included in the binary object.
> > > > > However, field names are still missing and the class needs to be
> > > present
> > > > to
> > > > > deserialize.
> > > > > That's why arbitrary objects should not be allowed in the
> handshake:
> > in
> > > > > most cases they can't be decoded.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alexei, yes, compactFooter is used only in 1 place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BinaryWriterExImpl.marshal0() {
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   BinaryClassDescriptor desc = ctx.descriptorForClass(cls);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   // descriptor transportation fails here
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   desc.write(obj, this); // compactFooter here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 14:15 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode
> > binary
> > > > > values
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> > > side
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There should be no need to put binary values to attributes.
> > What's
> > > > the
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > case?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class
> descriptor
> > > > check.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, my understanding was a binary object with compact
> footer
> > =
> > > > > false
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > totally standalone entity and can be read without any
> external
> > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > Dmitrii Ryabov can you double check ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we support only strings it will be necessary to encode
> > binary
> > > > > values
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > something like BASE64 which is not sounds good from usability
> > > side.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:26, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 for the hardcoded String type only
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 13:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Cross-platform binary objects are totally possible, all
> > > those
> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > clients support them.
> > > > > > > > > > - User attributes can be useful, no objections here
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, I don't think we should allow arbitrary objects
> in
> > > > user
> > > > > > > > > attributes.
> > > > > > > > > > Let's make them string only, much less to worry about.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And using attributes for authentication still seems weird
> > and
> > > > > > dirty.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:40 PM Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > > > Footer is checked in postWrite - much later class
> > > descriptor
> > > > > > check.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:23 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 12:17, Dmitrii Ryabov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we add
> > > some
> > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I want to allow primitives only. Any
> > > language
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and strings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In general it's possible to have cross-platform
> complex
> > > > data
> > > > > > > > > structures,
> > > > > > > > > > > > for example see protobuf.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Binary marshaller, before packing object to byte[],
> > > will
> > > > > try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discovery processor and send message containing
> class
> > > > > > > descriptor.
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clients don't have discovery. Furthermore, if we
> > write
> > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without class descriptor synchronization, we can
> get
> > > > > objects
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class versions and corresponding exceptions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Even if compact footer is disabled ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But we can say users to declare their classes in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > META-INF/classnames.properties and current binary
> > > > > marshaller
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This approach doesn't looks like cross-platform.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 23 янв. 2020 г., 12:13 Alex Plehanov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > User attributes also (besides authentication) can
> > be
> > > > used
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about an application that uses a client and then
> > > > display
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in monitoring tools. Other vendors use such
> > approach
> > > > > > (Oracle
> > > > > > > > DB,
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example, have DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO package,
> > > > PostgreeSQL
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > application_name connection property and
> > application
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > later in system views).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > About allowed data types: we should definitely
> > limit
> > > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only primitive types. Thin client binary
> marshaller
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about custom types before the handshake.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 21:39, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked through the PR more closely, trying
> > to
> > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there are some Java-specific things going
> on
> > > > (left
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > comment).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind that we have thin clients
> in
> > > > > Python,
> > > > > > > > > Node.js,
> > > > > > > > > > > > C++,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > C#.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The protocol must be language-agnostic. If we
> add
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's make sure they are usable from anywhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:21 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The approach with UserAttributes map looks
> > dirty
> > > to
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > raises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why is UserAttributes property related to
> > > > > > > authentication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - UserAttributes name implies that users can
> > put
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but what for? What are those additional use
> > > cases?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should focus on a specific problem
> > at
> > > > hand
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unnecessary future-proofing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are current and potential future custom
> > > > > > > authenticators
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of data do they need?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:28 PM Nikita
> > Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think we should add this. It will provide
> an
> > > > extra
> > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > security.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This approach is used in many products, for
> > > > example
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > AWS
> > > > > > > > > > > (MFA).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-sec-cred-types.html#multi-factor-authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 18:13, Andrey
> Kuznetsov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, Pavel!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sometimes single authentication factor is
> > not
> > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > Attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > allow to add extra factors flexibly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:39 Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Token can be sent instead of a password
> > > (like
> > > > > git
> > > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > tokens).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > For now I don't see a reason to include
> > > > > attributes
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ilya
> > > > Kasnacheev
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One does not send security certificate
> > as
> > > > > > > attribute.
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > peer security certificate is to ask
> SSL
> > > > engine
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Nevertheless, I can see how it can be
> > > useful
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > token-based IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:20, Dmitrii
> > > Ryabov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This map is something like user
> object
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `SecurityCredentials`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sometimes login and password are not
> > > > enough
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example, we can send security
> > > certificate
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > validate
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > authenticator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г., 17:16 Igor
> > Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you please explain your use
> > case?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure I'm getting what is
> the
> > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM
> > Pavel
> > > > > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Dmitrii,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, I could not grasp the
> > > > problem,
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > detail?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > What do we solve by adding a map
> > > with
> > > > > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > protocol handshake?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:02 PM
> > > > Dmitrii
> > > > > > > > Ryabov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to add the possibility
> of
> > > > > sending
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clients. And check them inside
> > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > authenticator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > handshake
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is an issue in hardcoded
> > > > binary
> > > > > > > writer
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `IgniteClient`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This writer searches for a
> > classes
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > JDK
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> META-INF/classnames.properties,
> > > and
> > > > > > tries
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > sync
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> notdeclared
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cluster. But fails because
> > current
> > > > > > > > > classloading
> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discovery.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd like to keep this writer
> and
> > > > allow
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > `String`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for user attributes to prevent
> > > > > > unexpected
> > > > > > > > > fails. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > changing writer to one with
> > heavy
> > > > > > > > > classloading.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Is it ok to restrict thin
> > > attributes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > primitives
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'String'?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12049
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>