Bug 967674

Summary: Make sure that all the SLSB methods are callable from scripted alert notifications
Product: [JBoss] JBoss Operations Network Reporter: Lukas Krejci <lkrejci>
Component: Core ServerAssignee: RHQ Project Maintainer <rhq-maint>
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM QA Contact: Mike Foley <mfoley>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: JON 3.2CC: hrupp
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: JON 3.2.0   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-11-19 14:30:05 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On: 967675    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Lukas Krejci 2013-05-28 00:36:27 UTC
Description of problem:

EAP 6.1 that JON uses as the base container implements some additional java security permission checks not present in AS 7.1.1.Final (for example the ModelController.createClient() method).

We need to make sure that any such hardened methods reachable from our remote API and classes accessible to the CLI alert scripts are properly handled.

This means that we either let the security exception propagate if we determine that such usage by scripts is indeed dangerous or we need to surround such calls in privileged action blocks so that they're usable from the scripts.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
JON 3.2.0

How reproducible:
maybe, one instance of this already captured by BZ 967622

Additional Notes:

This is meant to be an umbrella BZ that should depend on concrete cases.

Comment 1 Heiko W. Rupp 2013-09-09 07:35:41 UTC
Lukas can you please investigate this and also the dependent Bug 967675 what there is to do.

Comment 2 Lukas Krejci 2013-10-14 13:27:09 UTC
IMHO, we shouldn't be too worried about this, because we haven't had any new instance of such security-related problems since bug 967622 (or its JON equivalent, BZ 967675).

I believe the QA coverage of the APIs is rather good so I assume we'd already have seen this kind of problems (as we did with BZ 967622 that was discovered by QE).

I propose to close this. What do you think, Heiko?

Comment 3 Heiko W. Rupp 2013-10-16 09:40:17 UTC
I am in favor of closing if we haven't found new instances of this in the investigations.

Comment 4 Lukas Krejci 2013-11-19 14:30:05 UTC
Closing. We haven't discovered a new issue similar to this for the last 10 months.