Verify | simple role/permission authentication bundle | Authentication library

You can use ngif to check the condition and show the data:

Here's a solution:

Well, it's indeed not possible that declarative way since we don't have hook for injecting to the reactive type in the middle on that level.

Try to look into a TransactionalOperator and its usage from the Java DSL's fluxTransform():

Please enable the quarkus-smallrye-jwt TRACE logging to see why the tokens are rejected. And indeed, as you have also found out, https protocol needs to be enabled in the native image, which can be done, as you have shown :-), by adding --enable-url-protocols=https to the native profile's properties in pom.xml.

This PR will ensure adding it manually won't be required.

thanks

firebaser here

Firebase itself passes the ID token with each request, and then uses that on the server to identify the user and to determine whether they're authorized to perform the operation. This is a common (I'd even say idiomatic) approach to authentication and authorization, and if there's a security risk that you've identified in it, we'd love to hear about it on https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/

From reading the blog post it seems the author is making a distinction between authentication (the user proving their identify) and authorization (them getting access to certain resources based on that identity), but it'd probably be best to ask the author for more information on why that would preclude passing an ID token to identify the user.

a) Even if obviously it could be better, is this solution is acceptable or not at all ?

I think it has some problems you want to address, but the general idea of using the filesystem and storing just filenames can be acceptable, depending on how many users you need to serve and what guarantees regarding data consistency and concurrent accesses you want to make.

I would consider the uploaded file temporary data that may be lost on system failure. If you want to provide any guarantees of not losing the data, you want to store it in a database instead of on the filesystem.

b) I pass 'uploaded_file' from one view to another using "request.session" is it a good practice? Is there another way to do it without using GET variables?

There are up- and downsides to using request.session.

• attackers can not change the filename and thus retrieve data of other users. This is also the reason why you should not use a GET parameter here: If you used one, attackers could simpy change that parameter and get access to files of other users.
• users can upload a file, go and do other stuff, and later come back to actually import the file, however:
• if users end their session, you lose the filename. Also, users can not upload the file on one device, change to another device, and then go on with the import, since the other device will have a different session.

The last point correlates with the leftover files problem: If you lose your information about which files are still needed, it makes cleaning up harder (although, in theory, you can retrieve which files are still needed from the session store).

If it is a problem that sessions might end or change because users clear their cookies or change devices, you could consider adding the filename to the UserProfile in the database. This way, it is not bound to sessions.

c) At first my wish was to avoid to save the csv-file. But I could not figure out how to do it? Reading all the file to request.session seems not a good idea for me. Is there some possibility to upload the file into memory in Django?

You want to store state. The go-to ways of storing state are the database or a session store. You could load the whole CSVFile and put it into the database as text. Whether this is acceptable depends on your databases ability to handle large, unstructured data. Traditional databases were not originally built for that, however, most of them can handle small binary files pretty well nowadays. A database could give you advantages like ACID guarantees where concurrent writes to the same file on the file system will likely break the file. See this discussion on the dba stackexchange

Your database likely has documentation on the topic, e.g. there is this page about binary data in postgres.

d) If I have to use the tmp-file. How should I handle the situation if user abandon upload at the middle (for example, he sees the confirmation page, but does not click "yes" and decide to re-write his file). How to remove the tmp-file?

Some ideas:

• Limit the count of uploaded files per user to one by design. Currently, your filename is based on a timestamp. This breaks if two users simultaneously decide to upload a file: They will both get the same timestamp, and the file on disk may be corrupted. If you instead use the user's primary key, this guarantees that you have at most one file per user. If they later upload another file, their old file will be overwritten. If your user count is small enough that you can store one leftover file per user, you don't need additional cleaning. However, if the same user simultaneusly uploads two files, this still breaks.
• Use a unique identifier, like a UUID, and delete the old stored file whenever the user uploads a new file. This requires you to still have the old filename, so session storage can not be used with this. You will still always have the last file of the user in the filesystem.
• Use a unique identifier for the filename and set some arbitrary maximum storage duration. Set up a cronjob or similar that regularly goes through the files and deletes all files that have been stored longer than your specified maximum duration. If a user uploads a file, but does not do the actual import soon enough, their data is deleted, and they would have to do the upload again. Here, your code has to handle the case that the file with the stored filename does not exist anymore (and may even be deleted while you are reading the file).

You probably want to limit your server to one file stored per user so that attackers can not fill your filesystem.

e) Small additional question : what kind of checks there are in Django about uploaded file? For example, how could I check that the file is at least a text-file? Should I do it?

You definitely want to set up some maximum file size for the file, as described e.g. here. You could limit the allowed file extensions, but that would only be a usability thing. Attackers could also give you garbage data with any accepted extension.

Keep in mind: If you only store the csv as text data that you load and parse everytime a certain view is accessed, this can be an easy way for attackers to exhaust your servers, giving them an easy DoS attack.

Overall, it depends on what guarantees you want to make, how many users you have and how trustworthy they are. If users might be malicious, you want to keep all possible kinds of data extraction and resource exhaustion attacks in mind. The filesystem will not scale out (at least not as easily as a database).

I know of a similar setup in a project where only a handful of priviliged users are allowed to upload stuff, and we can tolerate deletion of all temporary files on failure. Users will simply have to reupload their files. This works fine.

This functionality is only available on scripted pipeline at the moment, and is described in the documentation.

For example:

The Kubernetes project is making an effort to move away from wording that can be considered offensive, with one concrete recommendation being renaming master to control-plane. In other words control-plane and master mean essentially the same thing, and the goal is to switch the terminology to use control-plane exclusively going forward. (More info in this answer)

The kubectl command is a command line interface that executes on a client (i.e your computer) and interacts with the cluster through the control-plane. The IP address you are seing through cluster-info is the IP address through which you reach the control-plane

Here I'm wondering about the line [in s_client]
New, TLSv1/SSLv3, Cipher is ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384

You're apparently using OpenSSL 1.0.2, where that's a basically useless relic. Back in the days when OpenSSL supported SSLv2 (mostly until 2010, although almost no one used it much after 2000), the ciphersuite values used for SSLv3 and up (including all TLS, but before 2014 OpenSSL didn't implement higher than TLS1.0) were structured differently than those used for SSLv2, so it was important to qualify the ciphersuite by the 'universe' it existed in. It has almost nothing to do with the protocol version actually used, which appears later in the session-param decode: