On 17 March 2016 at 16:14, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:24 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 17 March 2016 at 13:03, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:59 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The status page says that passenger status is restricted to "ASF >>>> committer only", however the code uses the realm "ASF Members and >>>> Officers". >>>> >>>> Which is correct? >>> >>> At, the moment, the code obviously. :-)
But see below ... >>> >>> Originally, passenger status was open, and authentication was only >>> required when you clicked a button to restart a process. I got >>> feedback that showing a button which a person could not use was not >>> ideal. >>> >>> I don't have a strong opinion as to whether committers should be able >>> to restart processes. At a minimum, I would like members to be able >>> to do so. >> >> In which case maybe the code can check karma before displaying the button. >> >> This assumes that ASF Committers have a need to see the Passenger status. > > Initially it had no authentication, which made checking karma kinda difficult. If the user has authenticated already, I think the HTTP server will set HTTP_X_AUTHENTICATED_USER. If that was set, it could be checked to see if the user was in the appropriate group. Note that the code currently checks if it can login to LDAP via HTTP_AUTHORIZATION. If that is the case then the auth popup is not shown. However it does not check whether the login belongs to any specific group, so there is a slight disconnect here. If the check fails, the auth pop-up is shown, and it looks like that requires Member or Officer karma. This is inconsistent. I wonder whether it would be better to protect apps via HTTP auth, rather than adding auth checks to specific apps. > - Sam Ruby
