[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] So which protection to we want by default for extensions pages
Hi xwikiers, In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it). This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was: * EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.) That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :) Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward. Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end. In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one: Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning). 1) Basic/advanced based 1.a) Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic) 1.b) Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). 2) Admin right based 2.a) Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins 2.b) Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). 3) Both Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else WDYT ? The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge. I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used. In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK. Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)). From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are: * The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts. Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO. Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail: 0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3) On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning): | Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W | Thanks, Caty On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 3 May 2018, at 12:11, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
You’re forgetting the the hosting/easy upgrade use case ;) Thanks -Vincent
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
It would be interesting to have an Administration configuration to ask if extension customization are allowed or not: - for advanced developers that want total control of their instance and create a custom one, they would put YES and do the upgrades on their own; - (2a) while for Cloud/MyXWiki it would be on NO, using the applications as they are and only manage the content. On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 May 2018, at 12:11, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
You’re forgetting the the hosting/easy upgrade use case ;)
Thanks -Vincent
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced
users,
which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 3 May 2018, at 12:27, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
It would be interesting to have an Administration configuration to ask if extension customization are allowed or not: - for advanced developers that want total control of their instance and create a custom one, they would put YES and do the upgrades on their own;
I’m fine with simple/advanced user but Thomas mentioned that it’s hard/dangerous to do so I’m not sure we should focus on that one FTM.
- (2a) while for Cloud/MyXWiki it would be on NO, using the applications as they are and only manage the content.
Note that it’s not just for Cloud/MyXWiki but any sane admin might want that on the xwiki instance he/she administers to forbid users from changing extension pages because he/she’ll be the one doing the upgrade and doesn’t any bad surprise to upgrade! It’s actually a sane default and the more I think about it and the more I think it should be the default (and allow admins to turn page extension editing on the first time they really need it). Thanks -Vincent
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 May 2018, at 12:11, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
You’re forgetting the the hosting/easy upgrade use case ;)
Thanks -Vincent
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced
users,
which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 May 2018, at 12:27, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
It would be interesting to have an Administration configuration to ask if extension customization are allowed or not: - for advanced developers that want total control of their instance and create a custom one, they would put YES and do the upgrades on their own;
I’m fine with simple/advanced user but Thomas mentioned that it’s hard/dangerous to do so I’m not sure we should focus on that one FTM.
- (2a) while for Cloud/MyXWiki it would be on NO, using the applications as they are and only manage the content.
Note that it’s not just for Cloud/MyXWiki but any sane admin might want that on the xwiki instance he/she administers to forbid users from changing extension pages because he/she’ll be the one doing the upgrade and doesn’t any bad surprise to upgrade!
They can do this already with access rights. The problem is that: * The Extension Manager doesn't have an UI to list the pages belonging to an installed XAR extension * The Admin doesn't always know which page from the extension XAR should be protected (which is code and which is demo content) We could probably add a step at the end of XAR extension install to allow the administrator to configure the extension/application access rights. This step could also be an administration section under User & Rights, e.g "Applications" where we show a tree with installed XAR extensions at the top and their pages below, allowing the administrator to configure the access rights. The issue is choosing/providing a default. The default could be based on the XAR page type, e.g. after a XAR extension is installed a script set edit right to allow for admin group based on the page type.
It’s actually a sane default and the more I think about it and the more I think it should be the default (and allow admins to turn page extension editing on the first time they really need it).
Thanks -Vincent
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3 May 2018, at 12:11, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button,
so
they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
You’re forgetting the the hosting/easy upgrade use case ;)
Thanks -Vincent
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if
we
should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
> On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi xwikiers, > > In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing > extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it). > > This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial > (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was: > > * EDIT right forced false for basic users > * still a warning for advanced users > * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for > everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
> That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :) > > Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like > "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of > work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a > protected document would not exactly be straightforward. > > Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what > we want in the end. > > In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk > about which options we need to provide in another one: > > Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit > everything (with a warning). > > 1) Basic/advanced based > > 1.a) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. > Edit warning for advanced users. > Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN > implied rights logic) > > 1.b) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. > Edit warning for advanced users. > Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). > > 2) Admin right based > > 2.a) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone > Even admins > > 2.b) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone > Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). > > 3) Both > > Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right > Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else > > WDYT ? > > The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is > by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure > having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit > of protected pages since it's not about security and more about > knowledge. > > I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but > I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). > It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that > some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib > extensions which will probably never get configured properly because > not really maintained anymore but still used. > > In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most > dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and > EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for > basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK. > > Thanks, > -- > Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
By "users" and "devs" you mean "basic" and advanced, right ? On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 3 May 2018, at 13:56, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
By "users" and "devs" you mean "basic" and advanced, right ?
“simple” and “advanced” since “basic” doesn’t exist ;) http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Documentation/UserGuide/Features/PageEdi... -Vincent
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
By "users" and "devs" you mean "basic" and advanced, right ?
It would be ideal if we could just say it's just basic or advanced. I meant more from a purpose point of view. "Devs" can be defined as advanced users or advanced admins, but the main differentiator is their clear intention to modify and create apps.
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]
wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
By "users" and "devs" you mean "basic" and advanced, right ?
It would be ideal if we could just say it's just basic or advanced. I meant more from a purpose point of view. "Devs" can be defined as advanced users or advanced admins, but the main differentiator is their clear intention to modify and create apps.
Sure but there is no standard way to indicate that someone is a "dev" in XWiki so I will need more details :) IMO the closest we have right now is "advanced" so that' what I listed.
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]
wrote:
Hi xwikiers,
In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it).
This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was:
* EDIT right forced false for basic users * still a warning for advanced users * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :)
Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a protected document would not exactly be straightforward.
Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what we want in the end.
In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk about which options we need to provide in another one:
Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit everything (with a warning).
1) Basic/advanced based
1.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN implied rights logic)
1.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. Edit warning for advanced users. Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
2) Admin right based
2.a)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Even admins
2.b)
Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right).
3) Both
Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else
WDYT ?
The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit of protected pages since it's not about security and more about knowledge.
I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib extensions which will probably never get configured properly because not really maintained anymore but still used.
In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
Hello On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
By "users" and "devs" you mean "basic" and advanced, right ?
It would be ideal if we could just say it's just basic or advanced. I meant more from a purpose point of view. "Devs" can be defined as advanced users or advanced admins, but the main differentiator is their clear intention to modify and create apps.
Sure but there is no standard way to indicate that someone is a "dev" in XWiki so I will need more details :)
Imo, the dev persona always has admin rights. If they're described as "want to modify and create apps", both of these imply having admin rights: installing apps so that they can modify them requires admin rights, while creating a new app requires admin rights as well (I might be wrong on this one, though). Also, "developing" on a wiki often means "doing what you can from configuration and code the rest", so I guess we can safely assume that they will be admins. As a default setting I'm actually hesitating between 2b and 0, with the possibility to restrain it further in the direction of 2a. I think it could do the job. Thanks, Anca
IMO the closest we have right now is "advanced" so that' what I listed.
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button,
so
they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
> On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]
wrote:
> > Hi xwikiers, > > In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing > extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it). > > This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial > (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was: > > * EDIT right forced false for basic users > * still a warning for advanced users > * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for > everyone, warning for everyone, etc.)
Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)).
From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are:
* The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts.
Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO.
Thanks -Vincent
> That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :) > > Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like > "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of > work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a > protected document would not exactly be straightforward. > > Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what > we want in the end. > > In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk > about which options we need to provide in another one: > > Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit > everything (with a warning). > > 1) Basic/advanced based > > 1.a) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. > Edit warning for advanced users. > Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN > implied rights logic) > > 1.b) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. > Edit warning for advanced users. > Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). > > 2) Admin right based > > 2.a) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone > Even admins > > 2.b) > > Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone > Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). > > 3) Both > > Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right > Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else > > WDYT ? > > The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is > by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure > having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit > of protected pages since it's not about security and more about > knowledge. > > I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but > I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). > It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that > some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib > extensions which will probably never get configured properly because > not really maintained anymore but still used. > > In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most > dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and > EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for > basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK. > > Thanks, > -- > Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Anca Luca <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
By "users" and "devs" you mean "basic" and advanced, right ?
It would be ideal if we could just say it's just basic or advanced. I meant more from a purpose point of view. "Devs" can be defined as advanced users or advanced admins, but the main differentiator is their clear intention to modify and create apps.
Sure but there is no standard way to indicate that someone is a "dev" in XWiki so I will need more details :)
Imo, the dev persona always has admin rights. If they're described as "want to modify and create apps", both of these imply having admin rights: installing apps so that they can modify them requires admin rights, while creating a new app requires admin rights as well (I might be wrong on this one, though). Also, "developing" on a wiki often means "doing what you can from configuration and code the rest", so I guess we can safely assume that they will be admins.
As long as you stick to Velocity and public APi you can still do many things and proudly be called a dev :) Creating an app (I guess you are refering to AWM) does not require admin right, what require admin right is having your app show up in the panel that's all. But I would not really include people using AWM in a dev category you can trust with extension pages.
As a default setting I'm actually hesitating between 2b and 0, with the possibility to restrain it further in the direction of 2a. I think it could do the job.
Thanks, Anca
IMO the closest we have right now is "advanced" so that' what I listed.
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
How I see this problem for extension technical pages: - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button,
so
they are not tempted to edit. - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own expense. - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware of the risks.
From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, which in practice it usually happens.
Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and W=(Warning):
| Users | Admins | |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| 0 | W | W | W | W | 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | 1b| -ED | W | W | W | 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W |
Thanks, Caty
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail:
0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3)
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > >> On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]
wrote: >> >> Hi xwikiers, >> >> In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing >> extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it). >> >> This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial >> (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was: >> >> * EDIT right forced false for basic users >> * still a warning for advanced users >> * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for >> everyone, warning for everyone, etc.) > > Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)). > > From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are: > > * The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default > * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts. > > Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less important IMO. > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security system :) >> >> Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like >> "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of >> work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a >> protected document would not exactly be straightforward. >> >> Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what >> we want in the end. >> >> In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk >> about which options we need to provide in another one: >> >> Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit >> everything (with a warning). >> >> 1) Basic/advanced based >> >> 1.a) >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. >> Edit warning for advanced users. >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN >> implied rights logic) >> >> 1.b) >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. >> Edit warning for advanced users. >> Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). >> >> 2) Admin right based >> >> 2.a) >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone >> Even admins >> >> 2.b) >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone >> Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). >> >> 3) Both >> >> Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else >> >> WDYT ? >> >> The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is >> by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure >> having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit >> of protected pages since it's not about security and more about >> knowledge. >> >> I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but >> I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). >> It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that >> some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib >> extensions which will probably never get configured properly because >> not really maintained anymore but still used. >> >> In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most >> dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and >> EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for >> basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
participants (5)
-
Anca Luca -
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol