RE: ACL and lockdiscovery

I basically agree with Geoff.

However there's the legitamite use case that a UI needs to get the active
locks just in order to be able to display whether a resource is locked or
not. So maybe we should think of a way that handles this case, without
having to reveal "too much".

Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:19 PM
  To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
  Subject: RE: ACL and lockdiscovery



  If the client doesn't have permission to do an UNLOCK,
  or if the lock automatically times out
  (the two use cases identified where the server is likely to withhold
  the lock token), the client either cannot do an UNLOCK, or does not
  need to do an UNLOCK.

  WRT clients that do not store the lock tokens, but rather try to steal
  any lock token that is allowed by access control, this violates the whole
  point of having lock tokens instead of just a server-side lock (i.e.
preventing
  two clients working on behalf of the same user from stomping on each
other),
  and such a client should be fixed, not catered to by servers.

  Cheers,
  Geoff

  "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> wrote on 09/18/2003 12:32:20 PM:

  > Unfortunately, withholding the locktoken from the client that
  > requested that lock
  > would break UNLOCK for some clients that don't store their own lock
tokens.
  > Those clients might show error messages & cause support calls.
  > Thus, as a matter of interoperability, a server would at least have to
  > be careful in providing incomplete information in lockdiscovery.
  >
  > This area is murkier than I had thought.  Should there be a
clarification in
  > RFC2518bis? It would obviously be easier to write interoperable clients
  > if all servers had to behave the same in this area.  Is there a de facto
  > minimum standard here that we can clarify in the next rev?
  >
  > lisa
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]
  > On Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
  > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:17 AM
  > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
  > Subject: RE: ACL and lockdiscovery

  >
  > That is not correct.  RFC-2518 explicitly states in
  > section 13.8 (where the DAV:lockdiscovery property is defined):
  >
  > "The server is free to withhold any or all of this information
  > if the requesting principal does not have sufficient access rights
  > to see the requested data."
  >
  > In particular, if the client does not have sufficient access
  > rights to UNLOCK the resource, a server could very reasonably
  > choose to hide the lock-token information.
  >
  > In addition, a server for which locks have a reasonably
  > short maximum expiration may chose to never expose the lock tokens
  > (i.e. nobody has sufficient access rights to see the lock tokens).
  >
  > Cheers,
  > Geoff
  >
  > w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 09/17/2003 07:49:20 PM:
  >
  > >
  > > I'd also point out that the lockdiscovery property MUST contain
  > > all the lock tokens, regardless of access control settings.  This
  > > is not considered a security leak, because authorization is also
  > > needed to use a lock token.  So this is the server logic to apply
  > > whenever the client provides a lock token:
  > >
  > > Is this the same authorization context that took out the lock?
  > >   Yes {
  > >    Allow the operation normally, provided the operation is
  > >    allowed, and provided the lock token is correct and all
  > >    required lock tokens are provided, etc.
  > >   } No {
  > >    Is this an UNLOCK operation, with an authorization that
  > >    includes permission to delete others' locks?
  > >    Yes {
  > >       perform UNLOCK
  > >    } No {
  > >       Fail request
  > >    }
  > >   }
  > >
  > > Lisa
  > >
  > > > -----Original Message-----
  > > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
  > > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eric Sedlar
  > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:17 AM
  > > > To: 'Horst Liermann'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
  > > > Subject: RE: ACL and lockdiscovery
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > > > The ACL spec hasn't defined a privilege specifically to
  > > > control read access to the lockdiscovery property, or even a
  > > > privilege to control access to all the privileges in total.
  > > > An individual server implementation could provide such a
  > > > privilege and aggregate it under <dav:read>, but this isn't
required.
  > > >
  > > > --Eric
  > > >
  > > > > -----Original Message-----
  > > > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
  > > > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]
  > > > > On Behalf Of Horst Liermann
  > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:08 AM
  > > > > To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > > Hi all,
  > > > >
  > > > > some questions about lockdiscovery and ACL's
  > > > >
  > > > > Suppose, you have a server with WebDAV ( including lock) and it
  > > > > support's ACL. What is the behavior for lockdiscovery, can
  > > > I see all
  > > > > lock token or am I only allowed to see the tokens where I
  > > > am the owner
  > > > > of the lock ? As far as I understand, lockdiscovery reports
  > > > all locks.
  > > > > Is this a security leak ?
  > > > >
  > > > > Best Regards
  > > > >    Horst
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > >
  > >