users@javaee-spec.java.net

[javaee-spec users] Re: [jsr366-experts] Java EE Security API

From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 08:54:58 -0400

In my case too, I have seen many folks use the Web Profile. They would scratch their heads as to why they need to switch to the full profile just to take advantage of better standardization for security. It looks very odd if the answer is some technicality they don't care about in a commitee.
-------- Original message --------From: Ondrej Mihályi <ondrej.mihalyi_at_gmail.com> Date: 4/11/17 8:13 AM (GMT-05:00) To: users <users_at_javaee-spec.java.net> Subject: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jsr366-experts] Java EE Security API
Hi, So if I try to summarize it seems a lot of shortcuts have been taken cause of resources so regarding the addition or not of the spec to EE I think the question is: are we happy enough of current state to make it part of the platform or does it need more work to be at the level of something we want to support for year. For me it has a small of unfinished, in particular at platform level (at spec level itself it is usable with choice you agree or not). The lack of other spec integration is kind of a blocker. It hurts EE at several other places like CDI/servlet async, concurrency utilities/async, CDI/JAAS, JAX-RS/CDI, CDI/Servlet scanning, ... and each time it bites the platform and makes it look unfinished. Would be great to avoid it for the security which is very important for all companies and not a place where we can accept half full glass IMHO.
In other words, are we OK with having at least something in the WebProfile or we'd rather wait another couple of years until all is polished?
The question is valid and full EE profile could provide an incubation for the spec and after it's improved after real life feedback, it could become part of Web Profile too. However, here are some objections from my side:
 - WebProfile is usually adopted faster, by more flexible companies and runtimes, and before real adoption, we can't receive a relevant real-life feedback. If the JSR is only in the full profile, the feedback would come much later
 - From all the previous arguments, I don't see anything prevent a later improvement while maintaining backward compatibility - the drawbacks mentioned (mostly by Romain) are about what is missing, and not about what is wrong and would possibly need to be changed in the future. The security spec can be improved later in EE 9, specifying all the missing pieces. My only concern is whether it can be easily integrated with other solutions to provide the missing pieces, e.g. as a CDI extension or something else. I guess the answer is "partially", but I think it's still far better than a 100% custom solution for security. Projects like Omnifaces or Deltaspike can provide the missing pieces until they are standardized later.
- I understand that only a part of JASPIC, which applies to the servlet container plus a few generic types, is required by the security JSR. Therefore only a small portion of JASPIC is required and is already available in Web Profile. This should be clarified in the Web Profile spec if the security JSR becomes part of it.
Ondrej
2017-04-11 13:49 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_gmail.com>:



2017-04-11 13:37 GMT+02:00 arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>:


On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_gmail.com> wrote:

1. There are no available hooks in Java EE to take advantage of to introduce those
Not sure the point there since all containers would get these hooks. A JSR doesnt have to be portable but just to provide an API which can work so don't think it is a blocker.
It's not a blocker in the technical sense indeed. If we really wanted it, such hook (its behaviour/SPI at least) could have been defined.
But unfortunately we just had very, very little resources. Basically 99% of JSR 375 was developed from my side on the commute from and back home, as that was all the time I had left.
It's an order of magnitude easier to use things that are already there, then to invent / spec new ones ;)
  2. There are very few if any existing mechanisms to use as examples for these containers3. Demand for them is quite low
Batch and @Async are not rare actually.

I agree, although I think what you want most here is a "login" method, meaning; skip the authentication mechanism (since there's not always a  caller to interact with) and directly set the authenticated identity. Such method was on the roadmap, but we just didn't get to it. Again, available resources were incredibly low. I'm half surprised we still got as much done as we did.
As a true authentication mechanism for @Asynchronous, yeah, that would be cool. But some thinking would have to go into how it would exactly interact with the caller. Throwing CDI events? The caller putting data in the event as response?
From our previous discussions about @Asynchronous and the enhanced CDI version of that, you probably remember how much I would have liked to see that in Java EE 8, but because of time constraints it just didn't happen.
Also, regarding the @Asynchronous annotation, it would have needed some cooperation of either the Concurrency spec or EJB spec, but neither were active during EE 8 :(
 Well it is cause of AuthenticationStatus and HttpMessageContext
I wouldn't quite call that a state machine. AuthenticationStatus is mainly so the code calling it programmatically knows what to do. 
SUCCESS -> huray, we can use the principal. IN_PROGRESS -> The mechanism took over the response and I can't touch the response myself now, FAILURE -> I need to handle the failure somehow, i.e. by setting an error message.
Is that a state machine, or just handling a response code? I dunno ;)
Well you have the notify methods etc implying a state machine you need to know as a user. Put another name if you prefer but point was it is a big complicated as a central API. 
 Maybe I missed something but the store doesn't secure by itself, I see it as the LoginModule for JAAS which is actually not the API you use to validate a context. So it is good it is not protocol specific (kudo on that) but we still miss some server in between no?

Indeed, the store doesn't secure by itself. It's a protocol independent "database" of sorts. It's exactly like the LoginModule (LoginModule could bridge to IdentityStore, another thing that was planned but not realised). You put a credential in, you get an authenticated caller and optionally groups out.
The one element that we didn't get to as mentioned above is something to directly set the outcome into the container without a mechanism in between. In terms of Servlet (but just as an example) that would correspond roughly to what HttpServletRequest#login does behind the scenes.

So if I try to summarize it seems a lot of shortcuts have been taken cause of resources so regarding the addition or not of the spec to EE I think the question is: are we happy enough of current state to make it part of the platform or does it need more work to be at the level of something we want to support for year. For me it has a small of unfinished, in particular at platform level (at spec level itself it is usable with choice you agree or not). The lack of other spec integration is kind of a blocker. It hurts EE at several other places like CDI/servlet async, concurrency utilities/async, CDI/JAAS, JAX-RS/CDI, CDI/Servlet scanning, ... and each time it bites the platform and makes it look unfinished. Would be great to avoid it for the security which is very important for all companies and not a place where we can accept half full glass IMHO. 
Kind regards,Arjan Tijms
  
Kind regards,Arjan Tijms



 
For all these doubts I don't think we are ready to be prime time so full profile only is saner for this release until a huge amount of work is done.
Side note 1: mvnrepository stats are limited which means they can't be use to check adoption (ex: deltaspike security api is more the ~ 2600 download *last month*). This fully ignore ("normally") the company frameworks which are nuuuummmeeerous for security and all end user applications.
Side note 2: not sure how polls help, think we should rather try on real application the API to see how it fits and what's the gap cause polls are really biaised, in particular on tweeter where network are partial until you hit 100k followers for most person retweeting.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory

2017-04-11 9:36 GMT+02:00 Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo_at_gmail.com>:
I personally think bringing JASPIC to the Web Profile is not a big deal since, as have been said, all mayor plain Servlet Containers already do that, and even the Servlet spec has been talking about explicitly requiring it.
JACC is another story, but then, JSR 375 can work without it so that's not a problem at all.
So big +1 from me on adding JSR 375 to the web profile, even if that needs to also pull JASPIC.

El mar., 11 de abril de 2017 0:53, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> escribió:
Could be a good idea indeed.
I'm of course strongly, strongly biased, but I know from application development and working with a lot of different devs in application development, that something like a basic security for JAX-RS endpoints in a fully portable and app controlled way is something that comes up each and every time.
Interestingly, JAX-RS is not part of the Web Profile.
Basically just something like defining this: (pre JSR 375 syntax)
http://arjan-tijms.omnifaces.org/2014/11/header-based-stateless-token.html



On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:47 AM, reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com> wrote:
If needed, I suggest doing a simple community poll (e.g. via Twitter) to help determine this. As I said, I suspect there is very strong desire for this functionality in all profiles.
What do other people in this EG think? I know activity has been sparse for quite a few months, but surely we all have some opinions on this?
-------- Original message --------From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com> Date: 4/10/17 4:38 PM (GMT-05:00) To: users_at_javaee-spec.java.net Subject: Re: [javaee-spec users] Re: [jsr366-experts] Java EE Security API
I actually think what we have now is pretty useful. Given the strong support for security in all the Java EE surveys, I think it sends the wrong message not to include it in the Web Profile. I don't see that there is any future where the security API does not wind up in pretty much all significant Java EE profiles.