I'm just want to create a standalone application with CouchDB back-end, but I don't know if I can add a new (ordinary) user without using admin credentials.
In the documentation I just got information about creating an admin user and existing user's permissions:
Only administrators may browse list of all documents (GET
/_users/_all_docs) Only administrators may listen to changes feed
(GET /_users/_changes)
Only administrators may execute design functions like views, shows and
others
There is a special design document _auth that cannot be modified
Every document except the design documents represent registered
CouchDB users and belong to them
Users may only access (GET /_users/org.couchdb.user:Jan) or modify
(PUT /_users/org.couchdb.user:Jan) documents that they own
Here is the relevant part of documentation.
Short answer:
YES, you can
Makes no sense in a registration if you have to use admin credentials to create your account. Anyway, here is an example:
https://serverfault.com/questions/742184/couchdb-user-creation-without-authentication-standard-behavior
In this topic also can be useful this articol:
http://www.staticshin.com/programming/easy-user-accounts-management-with-couchdb
One more tip:
Creating regular users in CouchDB
Related
So I am very interested in using Cloudkit but the documentation on anything over the basic features is horrible. I am looking to establish two basic user types: standard user (someone that can read records only) and an Admin user (can create and modify records). I setup security roles to reflect this and changed the access modifiers on each of the record types to include these roles. However, I cannot find anywhere how to change a user from one role to the other. I have implemented an Admin login of sorts in the app. Once they enter in the appropriate credentials, I want to allow that user to start editing records.
Does anyone know how to do this?
Thanks
I think it's still not possible to assign a security role to a user using code. Then this answer is still valid: How do I access security role in cloudkit
i'm developing a Symfony2 app which involves users with hierarchical roles. Right now i can register, recover and login into the application without issues as i've implemented roles and users as described in Symfony2 docs.
At that point, i've developed some CRUD's in order to be able to manage objects in the application but in the current implementation i must check current user roles in order to let him or not run "selected" actions. I mean, in each controller i get security context, then user object and check permissions then sometimes i need to check the current user is the owner of the data - i.e if an user has clients i need to check url passed variables/id/whatever are owned/belongs the current user - and then deny access or not.
So, as far i'm used to and feeling comfortable developing the application as mentioned above i'm wondering is there is a better approach or a Symfony2 approach where i can manage roles and data in standard or more understanding way so future developers doesn't need to go through each if or check inside controllers+actions. I also would like to note i would be able to customize how data or objects are fetched or loaded so i can optimize sql's run in background.
Symfony ACLs is exactly what you need. You can assign access rights (i.e. OWNER, EDIT, VIEW etc) to a single user or assign to all users with a certain role (or both).
If ACL is too complex for your needs, than an alternative approach would be to use a custom Security Voter.
I am very new to the CouchDB world! I have a database that can be read by all users, and also can edit the docs except for the design docs. Is there a way I can make a specific user edit only the doc that was created by him/her. I am using CouchApp nd the jquery.couch.js plugin
CouchDB doesn't have per-document permissions, only per-database permissions. If you grant write access to a user, he has write access to all the documents in the database.
Assuming you avoid making all users admin and that you use CouchDB's build-in authentication mechanism, I think that's the default behaviour.
For creating regular users, see Creating regular users in CouchDB.
For more details about how the user authentication and authorization actually works, see Security Features Overview, specifically the section below "Authentication database", which outlines the built in rules in CouchDB.
Only admin users can create new users, but there's nothing stopping your from having a program logging in and doing it automatically (using an admin user, this is assuming you are looking for some kind of "Registration" process where you would do for instance email validation through some other software of yours).
I did read http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/security.html and
and the previous question
CouchDB Authorization on a Per-Database Basis
and
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Security_Features_Overview
I am currently using Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 and via futon the adding an admin result in
adding a user at _users for example
_id
org.couchdb.user:stackoverflow
_rev
1-b9f223532b662d4ac52d14082d81e6a5
name
stackoverflow
password
null
roles
[ ]
type
user
So the first question is why the admin is added as type user and not admin is puzzling. This users are admin as they can do anything in any database and the role is empty BUT I did protect the _users document with
["admin"]
roles as the only members and only admins can access this (even if their role in the _users document is empty).
This protection does not allow new "normal" users to be created so the futon "signup" command will return Signup error: You are not authorized to access this db.
I think this setup is the only logical one. Why would you want anyone to be able to create a user on your database ??
Even if you specify read access in a db to be only for one admin every admin can access it
(
" admins" : {
"names" : ["guru"],
"roles" : ["boss"]
},
"readers" : {
"names" : ["guru"],
"roles" : ["boss"]
}
}
the above case has no impact on the newly created stackoverflow admin as per above example.
So my assumption is that admins created via futon can do everything and anything regardless. The only confusing logical part is the _users documents where they have no special type (they are users) nor a special role.
So back to the concrete question:
- when adding an admin via futon why is it not marked as admin inside the _users document and how does CouchDB from that document determine that it is a wide system admin?
- if you want to create a normal user WITHOUT allowing them to signup (via futon or direct HTTP Request) you have to protect the _users document. Yet how would you go to create yourself a user to read/write on his own database ?
- As the user (per CouchDB Docs) will have the read/write rights on a DB but not the possibility to create design documents how can he really use it efficiently as views will be needed for anyone developing using the DB?
It should be possible to have a normal, simply multi hosting without jeopardizing security as there is a shared CouchDB offering at http://www.iriscouch.com/ so I just don't understand how logically you would structure a simple service where a user has his own database and can do anything but just on this database. As the admin role is anyway "user" how would you distinguish them from a non admin in the _users table ?
Why is the admin added as a normal user and not an admin?
CouchDB is similar to Windows's Active Directory, or Unix NIS and LDAP: most users have "normal" accounts, however the admin account (e.g. Windows "Administrator", or Unix "root") does not use the normal accounting system, but rather a much simpler system (the local.ini config file).
If the account and authentication system ever has a problem, you can still log in as the admin and fix it.
Do I need to add the "_admin" role to a user?
No, the admin role (the role "_admin") does not come from the user's document, but only from the configuration, in the "admins" section.
How come all admins can read the database?
By creating an admin in the global configuration (either editing the local.ini file, or using Futon's "Configuration" tab, or clicking the "Fix this" link in Admin Party), you created a system admin. System admins have access to all data, always (similar to Windows Administrator and Unix root).
CouchDB supports database admins which are normal users. Those users have admin access only to a database, not to anything else, such as other databases, or the server config. Database admins are set in the "Security" section, by adding a user's name or role to the "Admins" lists.
The concrete question: - when adding an admin via futon why is it not marked as admin inside the _users document and how does CouchDB from that document determine that it is a wide system admin?
When adding an admin via Futon, two things happen
A normal user is created (with no valid password in fact)
The same user name is added to the system configuration "admins" section. GET /_config/admins/the_username to see it. (That's what Futon's configuration tab does.)
In other words, CouchDB does not know it is a wide system admin from the document but rather from the config. If you delete that config entry, the user is "demoted" back to a normal user.
Side note about Iris Couch
It can be a little confusing at first, but the CouchDB user and security system is pretty simple and powerful once you learn it. But each Iris Couch users have entire CouchDB servers. If you sign up, you have an account at Iris Couch, but you have an entire CouchDB server to use. Inside that server, you can create multiple users for your own applications.
Is user profiles an appropriate place to store things like number of items per page in a custom grid user selected? (I you can store it in the view, but it won't be per user this way).
My first though was to store these settings in user profiles, but there are problems with access permissions for programmatically creating user profile properties boiling down to you either have to give every user 'Manager User Profiles' permission in SSP or you have to run the application pool under a domain user, not NETWORK SERVICE. Both scenarios are unrealistic for me, so I'm now looking for another way to store such 'per user' settings.
Thanks!
Edit: I'm now considering ASP.NET profile mechanism with an additional DB to store user properties.
Given that the information is not sensitive a simple database with values stored against AD login should suffice.
And as you have the ASP.Net user database already, storing the information there would be the best option.
Maybe a Global List, that is only accessible for the SHAREPOINT\SYSTEM User and that you can then Query in a SPSecurity.RunWithElevatedPrivileges Function.
Disadvantage: You require Custom code to read/write to that list.
Cookie?
Sure they have limitations, but it is fairly easy to create the control to run javascript to add/edit the value