Uploaded image for project: 'Help-Desk'
  1. Help-Desk
  2. HELP-6964

FIWARE.Request.Tech.Security.AuthorizationPDP.Securing verbs via the PEP proxy

    Details

    • Type: extRequest
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Done
    • Fix Version/s: 2021
    • Component/s: FIWARE-TECH-HELP
    • Labels:
      None
    • HD-Chapter:
      Security
    • HD-Enabler:
      AuthZForce

      Description

      Hello,

      We would like to secure out ContextBroker so POSTS are allowed, but a
      DELETE isn't. We've asked you about this and you've said we should do the
      following:

      We've tried this, but we've had the following problems:

      In your previous mail, it is stated that we need AuthZForce. However,
      Keypass seems to do something similar. Can you explain the difference?

      Can you help us with this?

        Activity

        Transition Time In Source Status Execution Times Last Executer Last Execution Date
        Open Open In Progress In Progress
        5d 1h 47m 1 Cyril Dangerville 27/Jul/16 12:25 PM
        In Progress In Progress Answered Answered
        3s 1 Cyril Dangerville 27/Jul/16 12:25 PM
        Answered Answered Closed Closed
        47d 1 Alvaro Alonso 12/Sep/16 12:25 PM
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Fix Version/s 2021 [ 12600 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Description Hello,

        We would like to secure out ContextBroker so POSTS are allowed, but a
        DELETE isn't. We've asked you about this and you've said we should do the
        following:

        * You can configure as many PEPs as you want. You have only to modify the
        > listening port.
        > * You can configure an AuthZForce in
        > https://github.com/ging/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/local/local_settings.py.example#L629.
        > You only need to configure the URL in which it is listening
        > * To configure PEP to work with AuthZForce you have to use the Level 2 of
        > security. Here you will find tutorials about this:
        > https://edu.fiware.org/course/view.php?id=131


        We've tried this, but we've had the following problems:

           - If we pull the docker image of
           fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-5.4.0 or release-5.3.0a, the image
           starts, but shuts down after a few seconds after which the logs state that
           tomcat 7 can't be started.
           - When we run fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-4.4.1b, we get a
           tomcat with no webapp in the webapps directory other than the default
           stuff.
           - Performing a manual installation using this guide
           <http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.3.0a/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html#installation>
        will
           have the same result.

        In your previous mail, it is stated that we need AuthZForce. However,
        Keypass seems to do something similar. Can you explain the difference?

        Can you help us with this?

        --

        *****


        Lageweg 2 3703 CA Zeist
        ■ *mob *+31(0) 6 45 372 363
        ■ *tel* +31(0)30 699 70 20
        ■ *mail* *****

        www.itude.com ■ K.v.K. 30146090
        _____________________________________________________________________________
        ****Op deze mail is een disclaimer van toepassing. De inhoud daarvan is te
        lezen op onze website****

        Since January 1st, old domains won't be supported and messages sent to any domain different to @lists.fiware.org will be lost.
        Please, send your messages using the new domain (Fiware-tech-help@lists.fiware.org) instead of the old one.
        _______________________________________________
        Fiware-tech-help mailing list
        Fiware-tech-help@lists.fiware.org
        https://lists.fiware.org/listinfo/fiware-tech-help
        Hello,

        We would like to secure out ContextBroker so POSTS are allowed, but a
        DELETE isn't. We've asked you about this and you've said we should do the
        following:

        * You can configure as many PEPs as you want. You have only to modify the
        > listening port.
        > * You can configure an AuthZForce in
        > https://github.com/ging/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/local/local_settings.py.example#L629.
        > You only need to configure the URL in which it is listening
        > * To configure PEP to work with AuthZForce you have to use the Level 2 of
        > security. Here you will find tutorials about this:
        > https://edu.fiware.org/course/view.php?id=131


        We've tried this, but we've had the following problems:

           - If we pull the docker image of
           fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-5.4.0 or release-5.3.0a, the image
           starts, but shuts down after a few seconds after which the logs state that
           tomcat 7 can't be started.
           - When we run fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-4.4.1b, we get a
           tomcat with no webapp in the webapps directory other than the default
           stuff.
           - Performing a manual installation using this guide
           <http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.3.0a/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html#installation>
        will
           have the same result.

        In your previous mail, it is stated that we need AuthZForce. However,
        Keypass seems to do something similar. Can you explain the difference?

        Can you help us with this?
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment image001_01D21293559CAF30.png [ 28045 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27413 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27423 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27424 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27442 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27751 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27777 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27822 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27855 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27923 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 28235 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 28023 ]
        fla Fernando Lopez made changes -
        Description Hello,

        We would like to secure out ContextBroker so POSTS are allowed, but a
        DELETE isn't. We've asked you about this and you've said we should do the
        following:

        * You can configure as many PEPs as you want. You have only to modify the
        > listening port.
        > * You can configure an AuthZForce in
        > https://github.com/ging/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/local/local_settings.py.example#L629.
        > You only need to configure the URL in which it is listening
        > * To configure PEP to work with AuthZForce you have to use the Level 2 of
        > security. Here you will find tutorials about this:
        > https://edu.fiware.org/course/view.php?id=131


        We've tried this, but we've had the following problems:

           - If we pull the docker image of
           fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-5.4.0 or release-5.3.0a, the image
           starts, but shuts down after a few seconds after which the logs state that
           tomcat 7 can't be started.
           - When we run fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-4.4.1b, we get a
           tomcat with no webapp in the webapps directory other than the default
           stuff.
           - Performing a manual installation using this guide
           <http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.3.0a/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html#installation>
        will
           have the same result.

        In your previous mail, it is stated that we need AuthZForce. However,
        Keypass seems to do something similar. Can you explain the difference?

        Can you help us with this?

        --

        *Cristan Meijer*
        Software engineer


        Lageweg 2 3703 CA Zeist
        ■ *mob *+31(0) 6 45 372 363
        ■ *tel* +31(0)30 699 70 20
        ■ *mail* c.meijer@itude.com

        www.itude.com ■ K.v.K. 30146090
        _____________________________________________________________________________
        ****Op deze mail is een disclaimer van toepassing. De inhoud daarvan is te
        lezen op onze website****

        Since January 1st, old domains won't be supported and messages sent to any domain different to @lists.fiware.org will be lost.
        Please, send your messages using the new domain (Fiware-tech-help@lists.fiware.org) instead of the old one.
        _______________________________________________
        Fiware-tech-help mailing list
        Fiware-tech-help@lists.fiware.org
        https://lists.fiware.org/listinfo/fiware-tech-help
        [Created via e-mail received from: Cristan Meijer <c.meijer@itude.com>]
        Hello,

        We would like to secure out ContextBroker so POSTS are allowed, but a
        DELETE isn't. We've asked you about this and you've said we should do the
        following:

        * You can configure as many PEPs as you want. You have only to modify the
        > listening port.
        > * You can configure an AuthZForce in
        > https://github.com/ging/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/local/local_settings.py.example#L629.
        > You only need to configure the URL in which it is listening
        > * To configure PEP to work with AuthZForce you have to use the Level 2 of
        > security. Here you will find tutorials about this:
        > https://edu.fiware.org/course/view.php?id=131


        We've tried this, but we've had the following problems:

           - If we pull the docker image of
           fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-5.4.0 or release-5.3.0a, the image
           starts, but shuts down after a few seconds after which the logs state that
           tomcat 7 can't be started.
           - When we run fiware/authzforce-ce-server:release-4.4.1b, we get a
           tomcat with no webapp in the webapps directory other than the default
           stuff.
           - Performing a manual installation using this guide
           <http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.3.0a/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html#installation>
        will
           have the same result.

        In your previous mail, it is stated that we need AuthZForce. However,
        Keypass seems to do something similar. Can you explain the difference?

        Can you help us with this?

        --

        *****


        Lageweg 2 3703 CA Zeist
        ■ *mob *+31(0) 6 45 372 363
        ■ *tel* +31(0)30 699 70 20
        ■ *mail* *****

        www.itude.com ■ K.v.K. 30146090
        _____________________________________________________________________________
        ****Op deze mail is een disclaimer van toepassing. De inhoud daarvan is te
        lezen op onze website****

        Since January 1st, old domains won't be supported and messages sent to any domain different to @lists.fiware.org will be lost.
        Please, send your messages using the new domain (Fiware-tech-help@lists.fiware.org) instead of the old one.
        _______________________________________________
        Fiware-tech-help mailing list
        Fiware-tech-help@lists.fiware.org
        https://lists.fiware.org/listinfo/fiware-tech-help
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 28235 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Hello Help-Desk/Alvaro Alonso,

        Thank you for your reply and possibile fixes. Unfortunately it still does not work yet.
        To move forward on the security, we have decided to change our software-architecture.
        In this new architecture we do not need to secure the Contextbroker anymore since it will listen to our local API only.
        I would like to thank you al for the support on this issue. From our perspective, you may close this issue.

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Hello Help-Desk/Alvaro Alonso, Thank you for your reply and possibile fixes. Unfortunately it still does not work yet. To move forward on the security, we have decided to change our software-architecture. In this new architecture we do not need to secure the Contextbroker anymore since it will listen to our local API only. I would like to thank you al for the support on this issue. From our perspective, you may close this issue.
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Hi,

        you have to use your own AuthZForce instance an set its address in Horizon configuration. PEP Proxy is not necessary.

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Hi, you have to use your own AuthZForce instance an set its address in Horizon configuration. PEP Proxy is not necessary.
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Just to be sure:
        Do we need to configure a Wilma PEP proxy and specify the Authorization PDP
        GE URL in the config file? We are only configuring IDM with the AuthZForce
        service.
        Because we don't specific a our AuthZForce domain maybe the system doesn't
        know where to write the policy? I saw that we do have to define this in the
        PEP config file if we were to use this in combination with IDM and the
        AuthZForce service.

        Met vriendelijke groet/Kind regards,

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Just to be sure: Do we need to configure a Wilma PEP proxy and specify the Authorization PDP GE URL in the config file? We are only configuring IDM with the AuthZForce service. Because we don't specific a our AuthZForce domain maybe the system doesn't know where to write the policy? I saw that we do have to define this in the PEP config file if we were to use this in combination with IDM and the AuthZForce service. Met vriendelijke groet/Kind regards,
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        I linked a permission to a role and clicked on save to generate the
        rule/policy but do not see what you describe in my logs (these are the logs
        we previously sent up).
        I do see:
        ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY setting is not set.
        WARNING:idm_logger:ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY setting is not set.

        Met vriendelijke groet/Kind regards

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited I linked a permission to a role and clicked on save to generate the rule/policy but do not see what you describe in my logs (these are the logs we previously sent up). I do see: ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY setting is not set. WARNING:idm_logger:ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY setting is not set. Met vriendelijke groet/Kind regards
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Policies are created in AuthZForce when you assign a permission to a role and click in the button "Save". Are you doing this? It seems you are only creating the permission.

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Policies are created in AuthZForce when you assign a permission to a role and click in the button "Save". Are you doing this? It seems you are only creating the permission.
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        ​Dear Alvaro,

        We aren't getting the message: Access Control Domain not created, creating
        it...
        in our logs. What could be the problem?

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited ​Dear Alvaro, We aren't getting the message: Access Control Domain not created, creating it... in our logs. What could be the problem?
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment image001_01D21293559CAF30.png [ 28045 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Dear Ilknur, dear FInish FIWARE coach(es),

        one of the FInish teams has an issue with securing Orion using AuthZForce (see the two parts marked in green below).
        In short they want to prevent DELETE calls to Orion by implementing permissions/rules.

        I’m not sure whether using AuthZForce is the correct approach anyway, since only Wilma is mentioned in the Orion documentation:
        http://fiware-orion.readthedocs.io/en/develop/user/security/

        Do you have an advice?

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Dear Ilknur, dear FInish FIWARE coach(es), one of the FInish teams has an issue with securing Orion using AuthZForce (see the two parts marked in green below). In short they want to prevent DELETE calls to Orion by implementing permissions/rules. I’m not sure whether using AuthZForce is the correct approach anyway, since only Wilma is mentioned in the Orion documentation: http://fiware-orion.readthedocs.io/en/develop/user/security/ Do you have an advice?
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Hi, I don't see there any logs related the request to AuthZForce. As Cyril said before, we need to see logs with the form:

        Access Control Domain for application: XXXXXX

        and if it is not created yet:

        Access Control Domain not created, creating it...
        Domain created: XXXXXXXX

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Hi, I don't see there any logs related the request to AuthZForce. As Cyril said before, we need to see logs with the form: Access Control Domain for application: XXXXXX and if it is not created yet: Access Control Domain not created, creating it... Domain created: XXXXXXXX
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Renamed attached file: 'Logs IDM:Horizon after creating permission:HTTP.txt rule in IDM' to 'Logs IDM_Horizon after creating permission_HTTP.txt rule in IDM' because it contained invalid character(s).

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Renamed attached file: 'Logs IDM:Horizon after creating permission:HTTP.txt rule in IDM' to 'Logs IDM_Horizon after creating permission_HTTP.txt rule in IDM' because it contained invalid character(s).
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Hello Alvaro Alonso,

        Thank you for your reply on our FIWARE issue.
        Until now we are honestly convinced we did sent the HORIZON log files in the first place.
        So we have been waiting on your analysis on this issue.

        If certain settings (such as DEBUG) has to be changed first, please do say so.
        (DEBUG was activated).
        http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies <http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies>

        The debug files are attached.
        Could you please reply if this information is sufficient for analyses ?

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Hello Alvaro Alonso, Thank you for your reply on our FIWARE issue. Until now we are honestly convinced we did sent the HORIZON log files in the first place. So we have been waiting on your analysis on this issue. If certain settings (such as DEBUG) has to be changed first, please do say so. (DEBUG was activated). http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies < http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies > The debug files are attached. Could you please reply if this information is sufficient for analyses ?
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Comment by aalonsog@dit.upm.es :

        Hi,

        last thing I requested in the ticket was the output of the Horizon logs to see what is happening. You need first to configure DEBUG mode in Horizon log settings.

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Comment by aalonsog@dit.upm.es : Hi, last thing I requested in the ticket was the output of the Horizon logs to see what is happening. You need first to configure DEBUG mode in Horizon log settings.
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 28023 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Dear Technlogy employee,

        We are in the process to make the FInish contextbroker more secure. Thus by using the current available technology of FInish.
        However the communication seems to fail with Support. We send all information asked and our ticket HELP-6964 is suddenly closed.
        The current path is long and time consuming for everyone involved.
        Could you help us here to find the right channels to support, so we are able to finalize the last bits of code here ?

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Dear Technlogy employee, We are in the process to make the FInish contextbroker more secure. Thus by using the current available technology of FInish. However the communication seems to fail with Support. We send all information asked and our ticket HELP-6964 is suddenly closed. The current path is long and time consuming for everyone involved. Could you help us here to find the right channels to support, so we are able to finalize the last bits of code here ?
        backlogmanager Backlog Manager made changes -
        Summary [Fiware-tech-help] Securing verbs via the PEP proxy FIWARE.Request.Tech.Security.AuthorizationPDP.Securing verbs via the PEP proxy
        HD-Node Unknown [ 10852 ]
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Closed for inactivity

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Closed for inactivity
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso made changes -
        Resolution Done [ 10000 ]
        Status Answered [ 10104 ] Closed [ 6 ]
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Hi Cristian, I need to see the Horizon logs

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Hi Cristian, I need to see the Horizon logs
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27923 ]
        Attachment 2016-09-05 08_57_48.486 21 INFO eventlet.wsgi.txt [ 27924 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        We've tried both settings. But you're right: the ACCESS_CONTROL_URL should
        be 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080'. We've changed it back, and tested
        whether it worked by any chance, but it didn't. Here's what we did:

        We've changed the setting and restarted idm.

        Afterwards, we created a new permission in the dashboard and linked it to a
        role (this didn't give any problems, the permission stayed selected) which
        uses this IDM. We traced the log (see attachment). Maybe you guys can see
        if an error has occured. What's interesting is that there is no evidence
        that a call is being made to create a new policy.

        Afterwards, we did a call to http://idm.dev.babbler.io:
        8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies

        <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
        > <ns4:resources xmlns="http://authzforce.github.io/core/xmlns/pdp/3.6"
        > xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:ns3="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:core:schema:wd-17"
        > xmlns:ns4="http://authzforce.github.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5"
        > xmlns:ns5="http://authzforce.github.io/pap-dao-flat-file/
        > xmlns/properties/3.6">
        > <ns2:link rel="item" href="root"/>
        > </ns4:resources>

        As you can see: no policies can be found even though we created a
        permission in the idm application. Also note that A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ is
        the only domain visible at http://idm.dev.babbler.io:
        8080/authzforce-ce/domains/, so we made no mistake there.

        Do you have any other suggestions?

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited We've tried both settings. But you're right: the ACCESS_CONTROL_URL should be 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080'. We've changed it back, and tested whether it worked by any chance, but it didn't. Here's what we did: We've changed the setting and restarted idm. Afterwards, we created a new permission in the dashboard and linked it to a role (this didn't give any problems, the permission stayed selected) which uses this IDM. We traced the log (see attachment). Maybe you guys can see if an error has occured. What's interesting is that there is no evidence that a call is being made to create a new policy. Afterwards, we did a call to http://idm.dev.babbler.io: 8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> > <ns4:resources xmlns="http://authzforce.github.io/core/xmlns/pdp/3.6" > xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:ns3="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:core:schema:wd-17" > xmlns:ns4="http://authzforce.github.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5" > xmlns:ns5="http://authzforce.github.io/pap-dao-flat-file/ > xmlns/properties/3.6"> > <ns2:link rel="item" href="root"/> > </ns4:resources> As you can see: no policies can be found even though we created a permission in the idm application. Also note that A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ is the only domain visible at http://idm.dev.babbler.io: 8080/authzforce-ce/domains/, so we made no mistake there. Do you have any other suggestions?
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville made changes -
        Assignee Cyril Dangerville [ cyril.dangerville ] Alvaro Alonso [ aalonsog ]
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        Since it is an issue with the IdM not sending requests to PDP (there is nothing I can do to help on the PDP side), I am re-assigning the ticket to the IDM GE owner.

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited Since it is an issue with the IdM not sending requests to PDP (there is nothing I can do to help on the PDP side), I am re-assigning the ticket to the IDM GE owner.
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        Hello,
        I noticed that you are still using an invalid URL for ACCESS_CONTROL_URL (http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/...) Maybe I was not clear in one of my previous emails, but you should not have the URL path. It should be ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080'

        So if the ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY is not necessary, as Alvaro mentioned, can you try again with the following configuration?

        ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080'
        ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = 'undefined'
        

        Thanks.

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited Hello, I noticed that you are still using an invalid URL for ACCESS_CONTROL_URL ( http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/ ...) Maybe I was not clear in one of my previous emails, but you should not have the URL path. It should be ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080' So if the ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY is not necessary, as Alvaro mentioned, can you try again with the following configuration? ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080' ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = 'undefined' Thanks.
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Hi, the magic key is only used if you are securing the AZF with a PEP Proxy. So I guess it is not necessary in your case.

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Hi, the magic key is only used if you are securing the AZF with a PEP Proxy. So I guess it is not necessary in your case.
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27855 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        That worked. We have a bunch of logs now. This is what's happening when
        creating a new permission:

        Creating permission CRISTANNNNNNN

        DEBUG:idm_logger:Creating permission CRISTANNNNNNN

        REQ: curl -g -i -X GET http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/ -H "Accept:
        application/json" -H "User-Agent: python-keystoneclient"

        2016-08-18 13:57:09.296 18 INFO eventlet.wsgi.server [-] 127.0.0.1 - -
        [18/Aug/2016 13:57:09] "GET
        /v3/OS-ROLES/users/itude-mobile-dev/organizations/9c4fbe82451b495c9de07596131215e4/applications/allowed_roles
        HTTP/1.1" 200 359 0.098138

        2016-08-18 13:57:09.300 19 INFO eventlet.wsgi.server [-] 127.0.0.1 - -
        [18/Aug/2016 13:57:09] "GET /v3/ HTTP/1.1" 200 484 0.001653

        RESP: [200] Vary: X-Auth-Token Content-Type: application/json
        Content-Length: 331 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:57:09 GMT Connection:
        keep-alive

        RESP BODY: {"version": {"status": "stable", "updated":
        "2013-03-06T00:00:00Z", "media-types": [

        {"base": "application/json", "type": "application/vnd.openstack.identity-v3+json"}

        ,

        {"base": "application/xml", "type": "application/vnd.openstack.identity-v3+xml"}

        ],
        "id": "v3.0", "links": [

        {"href": "http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/", "rel": "self"}

        ]}}

        REQ: curl -g -i -X POST http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/OS-ROLES/permissions -H
        "User-Agent: python-keystoneclient" -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H
        "Accept: application/json" -H "X-Auth-Token:

        {SHA1}

        3273a540e40bae1953d0f58052b6a06c92441bb5" -d '{"permission": {"xml":
        "", "resource": "/test", "name": "CRISTANNNNNNN", "is_internal": false,
        "action": "DELETE", "application_id": "fdae7d987c6a435188a2200e31cac4db"}}'

        RESP: [201] Vary: X-Auth-Token Content-Type: application/json
        Content-Length: 313 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:57:09 GMT Connection:
        keep-alive

        RESP BODY: {"permission": {"xml": "", "resource": "/test", "name":
        "CRISTANNNNNNN", "links":

        {"self": " http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/OS-ROLES/permissions/017f1597bca949069580b54a2a793acf"}

        ,
        "is_internal": false, "action": "DELETE", "application_id":
        "fdae7d987c6a435188a2200e31cac4db", "id":
        "017f1597bca949069580b54a2a793acf"}}

        However, there are no logs with idm.dev.babbler.io (where our Autzforce is
        located) even though we have the following set in local_settings.py:

        1. ACCESS CONTROL GE

        ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = '
        http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies
        <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fidm.dev.babbler.io%3A8080%2Fauthzforce-ce%2Fdomains%2FA0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ%2Fpap%2Fpolicies&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHeGnULlUlkXH2-l_g_5JlceTjcJw>
        '

        ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = None

        This seems to be the reason why none of the policies are persisted to our
        authzforce server.

        Also: is ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY required? If yes, what should I set here?
        Changing it to 'undefined' like in
        https://github.com/ging/fiware-idm/issues/49 doesn't seem to work.

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited That worked. We have a bunch of logs now. This is what's happening when creating a new permission: Creating permission CRISTANNNNNNN DEBUG:idm_logger:Creating permission CRISTANNNNNNN REQ: curl -g -i -X GET http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/ -H "Accept: application/json" -H "User-Agent: python-keystoneclient" 2016-08-18 13:57:09.296 18 INFO eventlet.wsgi.server [-] 127.0.0.1 - - [18/Aug/2016 13:57:09] "GET /v3/OS-ROLES/users/itude-mobile-dev/organizations/9c4fbe82451b495c9de07596131215e4/applications/allowed_roles HTTP/1.1" 200 359 0.098138 2016-08-18 13:57:09.300 19 INFO eventlet.wsgi.server [-] 127.0.0.1 - - [18/Aug/2016 13:57:09] "GET /v3/ HTTP/1.1" 200 484 0.001653 RESP: [200] Vary: X-Auth-Token Content-Type: application/json Content-Length: 331 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:57:09 GMT Connection: keep-alive RESP BODY: {"version": {"status": "stable", "updated": "2013-03-06T00:00:00Z", "media-types": [ {"base": "application/json", "type": "application/vnd.openstack.identity-v3+json"} , {"base": "application/xml", "type": "application/vnd.openstack.identity-v3+xml"} ], "id": "v3.0", "links": [ {"href": "http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/", "rel": "self"} ]}} REQ: curl -g -i -X POST http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/OS-ROLES/permissions -H "User-Agent: python-keystoneclient" -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Accept: application/json" -H "X-Auth-Token: {SHA1} 3273a540e40bae1953d0f58052b6a06c92441bb5" -d '{"permission": {"xml": "", "resource": "/test", "name": "CRISTANNNNNNN", "is_internal": false, "action": "DELETE", "application_id": "fdae7d987c6a435188a2200e31cac4db"}}' RESP: [201] Vary: X-Auth-Token Content-Type: application/json Content-Length: 313 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:57:09 GMT Connection: keep-alive RESP BODY: {"permission": {"xml": "", "resource": "/test", "name": "CRISTANNNNNNN", "links": {"self": " http://127.0.0.1:35357/v3/OS-ROLES/permissions/017f1597bca949069580b54a2a793acf"} , "is_internal": false, "action": "DELETE", "application_id": "fdae7d987c6a435188a2200e31cac4db", "id": "017f1597bca949069580b54a2a793acf"}} However, there are no logs with idm.dev.babbler.io (where our Autzforce is located) even though we have the following set in local_settings.py: ACCESS CONTROL GE ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = ' http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies < http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fidm.dev.babbler.io%3A8080%2Fauthzforce-ce%2Fdomains%2FA0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ%2Fpap%2Fpolicies&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHeGnULlUlkXH2-l_g_5JlceTjcJw > ' ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = None This seems to be the reason why none of the policies are persisted to our authzforce server. Also: is ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY required? If yes, what should I set here? Changing it to 'undefined' like in https://github.com/ging/fiware-idm/issues/49 doesn't seem to work.
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        Hello,
        unfortunately, I cannot reach the usual contacts in the Keyrock team (Alvaro and Frederico) at the moment (probably on leave). Till they get back, I suggest to enable DEBUG logs in Horizon. This is done by changing the LOGGING/handlers/console/level value to DEBUG in the configuration file local_settings.py:

        ...
        LOGGING = {
          ...
            'handlers': {
               ...
                'console': {
                    # Set the level to "DEBUG" for verbose output logging.
                    'level': 'DEBUG',
                    'class': 'logging.StreamHandler',
                },
        ...
        

        Then uncomment (remove # character) all the lines with

        LOG.debug(...)
        

        in the file openstack_dashboard/fiware_api/access_control_ge.py in order to enable all possible debug messages regarding Keyrock-Authzforce interactions.

        Finally, restart Horizon, and check the logs in the console when you try to save rules/permissions in the dashboard again.

        According to the code in openstack_dashboard/fiware_api/access_control_ge.py, you should see logs like this at least:

        Access Control Domain not created, creating it...
        ...
        Domain created: XXXX
        ...
        

        You may send the logs to us for analysis if necessary. Thanks.

        Regards,
        Cyril

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited Hello, unfortunately, I cannot reach the usual contacts in the Keyrock team (Alvaro and Frederico) at the moment (probably on leave). Till they get back, I suggest to enable DEBUG logs in Horizon. This is done by changing the LOGGING / handlers / console / level value to DEBUG in the configuration file local_settings.py : ... LOGGING = { ... 'handlers': { ... 'console': { # Set the level to "DEBUG" for verbose output logging. 'level': 'DEBUG', 'class': 'logging.StreamHandler', }, ... Then uncomment (remove # character) all the lines with LOG.debug(...) in the file openstack_dashboard/fiware_api/access_control_ge.py in order to enable all possible debug messages regarding Keyrock-Authzforce interactions. Finally, restart Horizon, and check the logs in the console when you try to save rules/permissions in the dashboard again. According to the code in openstack_dashboard/fiware_api/access_control_ge.py , you should see logs like this at least: Access Control Domain not created, creating it... ... Domain created: XXXX ... You may send the logs to us for analysis if necessary. Thanks. Regards, Cyril
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27822 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Dear sirs,

        Is there any progress on this issue?

        Met vriendelijke groeten,

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Dear sirs, Is there any progress on this issue? Met vriendelijke groeten,
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        Hello Alvaro and Frederico,
        regarding issue HELP-6964, in KeyRock, is there a way to log the requests to Authzforce (and also the responses back)? Or any other way to troubleshoot the connection to Authzforce.

        We would like to check whether KeyRock is actually connecting to AuthZForce when the user saves the permissions, or why it is failing.

        Regards,
        Cyril (Authzforce owner)

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited Hello Alvaro and Frederico, regarding issue HELP-6964 , in KeyRock, is there a way to log the requests to Authzforce (and also the responses back)? Or any other way to troubleshoot the connection to Authzforce. We would like to check whether KeyRock is actually connecting to AuthZForce when the user saves the permissions, or why it is failing. Regards, Cyril (Authzforce owner)
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27777 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Dear sirs,

        Thank you for your response. I have changed the url like so:

        1. ACCESS CONTROL GE
          ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080'
          ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = None

        And changed the contents of policy_properties.xacml to this:

        <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><pdpPropertiesUpdate xmlns="http://authzforce.gith
        ub.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5"><rootPolicyRefExpression>{{ policy_id }}</rootPolicyRefExpression></p
        dpPropertiesUpdate>

        And have restarted IDM afterwards.

        Next I do the following:
        Create a new role in IDM
        Create a permission, filling in the HTTP Action (DELETE) and Resource (/test/bla)
        Add the permission to the role
        Press SAVE

        However, I still see only the exact same default domain “A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ" with only the default permit-all policy in http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies/root/0.1.0:

        <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
        <ns3:PolicySet xmlns="http://authzforce.github.io/core/xmlns/pdp/3.6" xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:ns3="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:core:schema:wd-17" xmlns:ns4="http://authzforce.github.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5" xmlns:ns5="http://authzforce.github.io/pap-dao-flat-file/xmlns/properties/3.6" PolicySetId="root" Version="0.1.0" PolicyCombiningAlgId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:policy-combining-algorithm:deny-unless-permit">
        <ns3:Target/>
        <ns3:Policy PolicyId="permit-all" Version="0.1.0" RuleCombiningAlgId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:rule-combining-algorithm:deny-unless-permit">
        <ns3:Target/>
        <ns3:Rule RuleId="permit-all" Effect="Permit"/>
        </ns3:Policy>
        </ns3:PolicySet>

        We still have not seen any sign that the connection between IDM and AuthZForce is working.

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Dear sirs, Thank you for your response. I have changed the url like so: ACCESS CONTROL GE ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080' ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = None And changed the contents of policy_properties.xacml to this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><pdpPropertiesUpdate xmlns="http://authzforce.gith ub.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5"><rootPolicyRefExpression>{{ policy_id }}</rootPolicyRefExpression></p dpPropertiesUpdate> And have restarted IDM afterwards. Next I do the following: Create a new role in IDM Create a permission, filling in the HTTP Action (DELETE) and Resource (/test/bla) Add the permission to the role Press SAVE However, I still see only the exact same default domain “A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ" with only the default permit-all policy in http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies/root/0.1.0: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <ns3:PolicySet xmlns="http://authzforce.github.io/core/xmlns/pdp/3.6" xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:ns3="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:core:schema:wd-17" xmlns:ns4="http://authzforce.github.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5" xmlns:ns5="http://authzforce.github.io/pap-dao-flat-file/xmlns/properties/3.6" PolicySetId="root" Version="0.1.0" PolicyCombiningAlgId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:policy-combining-algorithm:deny-unless-permit"> <ns3:Target/> <ns3:Policy PolicyId="permit-all" Version="0.1.0" RuleCombiningAlgId="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:3.0:rule-combining-algorithm:deny-unless-permit"> <ns3:Target/> <ns3:Rule RuleId="permit-all" Effect="Permit"/> </ns3:Policy> </ns3:PolicySet> We still have not seen any sign that the connection between IDM and AuthZForce is working.
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        Hello,
        in case you didn't receive Alvaro's reply on JIRA, Alvaro (IdM owner) confirmed that you have to use the root URL for the ACCESS_CONTROL_URL setting, i.e. in your case:

        ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080

        Also there was a small API change in the latest Authzforce version (5.4.0). Therefore, you have to change the content of the template file openstack_dashboard/templates/access_control/policy_properties.xacml to this (basically the only change consists to remove the 'ns2' namespace prefix):

        <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><pdpPropertiesUpdate xmlns="http://authzforce.github.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5"><rootPolicyRefExpression>{{ policy_id }}</rootPolicyRefExpression></pdpPropertiesUpdate>

        --END OF FILE--
        That should work. Could you try again with that configuration?

        @Alvaro: is there a way to log the requests from KeyRock to Authzforce (and also the responses back)? It would help a lot for troubleshooting.

        Kind regards,
        Cyril

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited Hello, in case you didn't receive Alvaro's reply on JIRA, Alvaro (IdM owner) confirmed that you have to use the root URL for the ACCESS_CONTROL_URL setting, i.e. in your case: ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080 Also there was a small API change in the latest Authzforce version (5.4.0). Therefore, you have to change the content of the template file openstack_dashboard/templates/access_control/policy_properties.xacml to this (basically the only change consists to remove the 'ns2' namespace prefix): <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><pdpPropertiesUpdate xmlns="http://authzforce.github.io/rest-api-model/xmlns/authz/5"><rootPolicyRefExpression>{{ policy_id }}</rootPolicyRefExpression></pdpPropertiesUpdate> -- END OF FILE -- That should work. Could you try again with that configuration? @Alvaro: is there a way to log the requests from KeyRock to Authzforce (and also the responses back)? It would help a lot for troubleshooting. Kind regards, Cyril
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Yes, you have to use the root URL.

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Yes, you have to use the root URL.
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        Alvaro,
        can you confirm that the configuration of ACCESS_CONTROL_URL is correct?
        As far as I know, with the latest IdM version, it should be the root URL like:
        http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080?

        I just checked openstack_dashboard/fiware_api/access_control_ge.py on
        https://github.com/ging/horizon

        Regards,
        Cyril

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited Alvaro, can you confirm that the configuration of ACCESS_CONTROL_URL is correct? As far as I know, with the latest IdM version, it should be the root URL like: http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080? I just checked openstack_dashboard/fiware_api/access_control_ge.py on https://github.com/ging/horizon Regards, Cyril
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27751 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Thank you for the reply,

        We have upgraded IDM to version 5.3.0 and installed AuthZForce version 5.4.0 manually using the Debian package using this <http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.4.0/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html> guide. We have put the following in Horizon’s local_settings.py:

        1. ACCESS CONTROL GE
          ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies'
          ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = None

        Although the described error in IDM is no longer occurring, when creating a new role and permissions in IDM, nothing appears to be happening in AuthZForce, not even an error in AuthZForce’s error.log. Are we missing some additional configuration?

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Thank you for the reply, We have upgraded IDM to version 5.3.0 and installed AuthZForce version 5.4.0 manually using the Debian package using this < http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.4.0/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html > guide. We have put the following in Horizon’s local_settings.py: ACCESS CONTROL GE ACCESS_CONTROL_URL = 'http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/A0bdIbmGEeWhFwcKrC9gSQ/pap/policies' ACCESS_CONTROL_MAGIC_KEY = None Although the described error in IDM is no longer occurring, when creating a new role and permissions in IDM, nothing appears to be happening in AuthZForce, not even an error in AuthZForce’s error.log. Are we missing some additional configuration?
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        Hi, I also recommend to install latest releases of both components.

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - Hi, I also recommend to install latest releases of both components.
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        Hello,
        it is an error in IdM, so you may ask the IdM owner (Alvaro in recipient), but I suspect an IdM-Authzforce incompatibility issue. Maybe your IdM version is not compatible with v4.4.1 (old release) of Authzforce. What is your IdM (KeyRock) version?

        @Alvaro: could you help on this? Do you see anything useful from the error stacktrace sent previously?

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited Hello, it is an error in IdM, so you may ask the IdM owner (Alvaro in recipient), but I suspect an IdM-Authzforce incompatibility issue. Maybe your IdM version is not compatible with v4.4.1 (old release) of Authzforce. What is your IdM (KeyRock) version? @Alvaro: could you help on this? Do you see anything useful from the error stacktrace sent previously?
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27442 ]
        Attachment ParseError at _idm_myApplications_fdae7d987c6a435188a2200e31cac4db_edit_roles_.html [ 27443 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Dear Sir,

        We have finally managed to get AuthZForce up and running (despite the fact
        it's version 4.4.1b and not the latest version). We used the available
        image on Docker Hub. To achieve this we used this guide:
        http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-4.4.1d/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html#domain-creation

        We tried linking idm and AuthZForce. These are the steps we took:

        • We created a domain in AuthZForce
        • In the local_settings.py file in horizon we changed the ACCESS_CONTROL_URL
          to: http://idm.dev.
          babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/ZWMqg1NHEea4zwJCrBEAAw/pap/policies
        • In our idm app, we created a role and a permission and tried to assign
          the permission to the role, when clicking on the save button we get a page
          full of errors (see .html attachment for the error messages)

        The policy does not appear in our
        http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/ZWMqg1NHEea4zwJCrBEAAw/pap/policies
        xml tree.
        Roles are permissions do get saved in our keystone database,
        but apparently can't be linked to each other.

        We are stumped and have no idea what's going on.
        What are we doing wrong? Hopefully you could shed some light on the
        situation. We would appreciate an answer asap, as we would like to get it
        working before the end of our sprint.

        Met vriendelijke groet/Kind regards,

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Dear Sir, We have finally managed to get AuthZForce up and running (despite the fact it's version 4.4.1b and not the latest version). We used the available image on Docker Hub. To achieve this we used this guide: http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-4.4.1d/InstallationAndAdministrationGuide.html#domain-creation We tried linking idm and AuthZForce. These are the steps we took: We created a domain in AuthZForce In the local_settings.py file in horizon we changed the ACCESS_CONTROL_URL to: http://idm.dev . babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/ZWMqg1NHEea4zwJCrBEAAw/pap/policies In our idm app, we created a role and a permission and tried to assign the permission to the role, when clicking on the save button we get a page full of errors (see .html attachment for the error messages) The policy does not appear in our http://idm.dev.babbler.io:8080/authzforce-ce/domains/ZWMqg1NHEea4zwJCrBEAAw/pap/policies xml tree. Roles are permissions do get saved in our keystone database, but apparently can't be linked to each other. We are stumped and have no idea what's going on. What are we doing wrong? Hopefully you could shed some light on the situation. We would appreciate an answer asap, as we would like to get it working before the end of our sprint. Met vriendelijke groet/Kind regards,
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville made changes -
        Status In Progress [ 3 ] Answered [ 10104 ]
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville made changes -
        Status Open [ 1 ] In Progress [ 3 ]
        Hide
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited

        I have been informed about your issue installing Authzforce, after Alvaro re-assigned your helpdesk ticket to me.

        Could you try installing authzforce-ce-server 5.4.0 by following the latest installation guide?
        Link:
        http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.4.0a/
        This means using the .deb package (not Docker).
        Let me know how it goes.

        For the other question regarding Keypass, all I know is what you can find on their github page:
        https://github.com/authzforce/server
        It is owned by Telefonica (not me/Thales), it is not an official FIWARE GEi since it is not in the FIWARE catalogue. It does not implement the FIWARE Authorization PDP GE API/specification. The features are not much detailed on github, apart from the fact that it provides a multi-tenant REST API to XACML 3.0 PAP/PDP. No info on which part of the XACML Core or which XACML profiles are supported for instance.

        On the other hand, Authzforce is the FIWARE Authorization PDP GEri (GE Reference Implementation) and therefore published in the FIWARE catalogue. More info on the FIWARE catalogue:
        http://catalogue.fiware.org/enablers/authorization-pdp-authzforce
        and on github for the list of features:
        https://github.com/authzforce/server

        Regards,
        Cyril Dangerville, Authorization PDP GE owner

        Show
        cdangerville Cyril Dangerville added a comment - - edited I have been informed about your issue installing Authzforce, after Alvaro re-assigned your helpdesk ticket to me. Could you try installing authzforce-ce-server 5.4.0 by following the latest installation guide? Link: http://authzforce-ce-fiware.readthedocs.io/en/release-5.4.0a/ This means using the .deb package (not Docker). Let me know how it goes. For the other question regarding Keypass, all I know is what you can find on their github page: https://github.com/authzforce/server It is owned by Telefonica (not me/Thales), it is not an official FIWARE GEi since it is not in the FIWARE catalogue. It does not implement the FIWARE Authorization PDP GE API/specification. The features are not much detailed on github, apart from the fact that it provides a multi-tenant REST API to XACML 3.0 PAP/PDP. No info on which part of the XACML Core or which XACML profiles are supported for instance. On the other hand, Authzforce is the FIWARE Authorization PDP GEri (GE Reference Implementation) and therefore published in the FIWARE catalogue. More info on the FIWARE catalogue: http://catalogue.fiware.org/enablers/authorization-pdp-authzforce and on github for the list of features: https://github.com/authzforce/server Regards, Cyril Dangerville, Authorization PDP GE owner
        mev Manuel Escriche made changes -
        HD-Enabler Wilma [ 10890 ] AuthZForce [ 10887 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Comment by aalonsog@dit.upm.es :

        Hi,

        you should contact the AuthZForce owner to solve those questions. I’ve just assigned the corresponding issue to him so he will contact you soon.

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Comment by aalonsog@dit.upm.es : Hi, you should contact the AuthZForce owner to solve those questions. I’ve just assigned the corresponding issue to him so he will contact you soon.
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso made changes -
        Assignee Alvaro Alonso [ aalonsog ] Cyril Dangerville [ cyril.dangerville ]
        Hide
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment -

        I assign this ticket to the AuthZForce owner.

        BR

        Show
        aalonsog Alvaro Alonso added a comment - I assign this ticket to the AuthZForce owner. BR
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27423 ]
        Attachment PastedGraphic-2.png [ 27424 ]
        Hide
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited

        Dear Sir/Madam,

        We are really struggling to secure the ContextBroker to prevent DELETE
        calls. So much that this has become an impediment to successfully finish
        our sprint. As Scrum master of this team I would like to ask you kindly to
        respond to the e-mail below. An indication of when we can expect a response
        would also really be helpful.

        We look forward to your response.

        Show
        fw.ext.user FW External User added a comment - - edited Dear Sir/Madam, We are really struggling to secure the ContextBroker to prevent DELETE calls. So much that this has become an impediment to successfully finish our sprint. As Scrum master of this team I would like to ask you kindly to respond to the e-mail below. An indication of when we can expect a response would also really be helpful. We look forward to your response.
        fw.ext.user FW External User made changes -
        backlogmanager Backlog Manager made changes -
        Assignee Alvaro Alonso [ aalonsog ]
        backlogmanager Backlog Manager made changes -
        HD-Chapter Unknown [ 10845 ] Security [ 10841 ]
        mev Manuel Escriche made changes -
        HD-Enabler Unknown [ 10910 ] Wilma [ 10890 ]
        backlogmanager Backlog Manager made changes -
        HD-Enabler Unknown [ 10910 ]
        HD-Chapter Unknown [ 10845 ]
        HD-Node Unknown [ 10852 ]
        backlogmanager Backlog Manager made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Component/s FIWARE-TECH-HELP [ 10278 ]
        fw.ext.user FW External User created issue -

          People

          • Assignee:
            aalonsog Alvaro Alonso
            Reporter:
            fw.ext.user FW External User
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            6 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: