-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[added] enforcement and usage of scoped signing keys #1805
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Matthias Hanel <mh@synadia.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe a change or two, otherwise, LGTM.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Hanel <mh@synadia.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A test in the signing keys is simply counting - when signing key could be added and removed before the server sees it. So the count is the same but contents are different.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would remote t.Log()..
Signed-off-by: Matthias Hanel <mh@synadia.com>
814206b
to
2cb5f1b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM - we are simply going to d/c user's whose scope has changed since they connected. On reconnect, they will have the proper permissions.
continue | ||
} | ||
if _, ok := alteredScope[sk]; ok { | ||
c.closeConnection(AuthenticationViolation) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so here we are simply d/c because their configuration changed, and a reconnect will make them have the correct permissions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this seems reasonable.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Hanel mh@synadia.com
I added a lookup of the scoped signing key to applyAccountLimits.
passing in the values into the function would have made the change a lot bigger.
Currently the update strategy of scoped keys is to disconnect the clients