Casey Duncan wrote:
1. manage_workspace is only protected by the Authenticated role, and that is done directly, not even through a permission.
I think that is probably because this method is an abstraction for the default managment screen. It does not know what the correct permission is, but assumes you at least must be logged in to see any management screen.
What are you suggesting to do about this?
My current thinking is "I don't know" ;-) I'm hoping discussion here can firm that up a bit...
2. self.filtered_manage_roles then limits the options of what can be shown, which might end up being nothing. But, because the method is only protected by 'Authenticated', no chance is given to specify other user credentials (say, from a user folder higher up in the tree) which might be able to see something.
Can you give a concrete use case for what you describe?
See below...
3. There's a bare try/except which masks errors. From what I can see, it should ONLY catch IndexError's.
Yep, bare excepts == bad. Kill it.
Will do :-)
5. The Unauthorized could raise a more helpful message "You are not authorized to view an of this object's management itnerface"
-0, I think it may be better to say nothing which discloses less information to would-be attackers. Perhaps VerboseSecurity might be able to elaborate, I dunno.
I don't understand VerboseSecurity enough to make this happen. Since the error message is already different from a "real" auth error, I'd say that vulnerability is already there, and so making it more informative to people it might help is not going to make Zope less secure...
The semantics I want are: "Show the 1st management tab the user is allowed to see, if they're not allowed to see anything, check if a user of the same name further up the userfolder tree can see anything"
Why? Is this consistent with behavior elsewhere?
It's consistent with how Zope userfolders work, yes...
Are you concerned that lower user folders could lock out global managers by creating non-privileged users with the same name locally?
Exactly. And since I did this to myself only to spend a morning going "huh?", I figure this code is not quite right...
2.7 and the HEAD are likely suspects for bug fixes. I doubt there will be another 2.6 release.
Righty, so, now just to figure out what to do... Chris PS: Are there any unit test for this? har har har har... -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk