ability to view details of other users

John Mazzitelli jmazzite at redhat.com
Tue Feb 21 16:10:21 UTC 2012


Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this thread now with all the
annoying >>>>>> and the non-top postings? :-p

On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 09:48 -0600, Larry O'Leary wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 10:04 -0500, Charles Crouch wrote: 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2/17/2012 6:08 PM, Charles Crouch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> That seems sensible, and consistent with the opt-out approach
> > > >> commonly
> > > >> taken by companies for customer privacy.
> > > >>
> > > >> I guess it depends what the requirement is - does the admin want
> > > >> the
> > > >> ability to prevent his users from seeing each others details, or
> > > >> would they be happy as long as their users had some way to make
> > > >> their
> > > >> details private if so desired?
> > > > I think its the latter, i.e. not opt-in/opt-out...
> > > > Quote from the customer:
> > > > "What we want to do is allow developers to view app server resource
> > > > performance information. We can already do this by restricting a
> > > > role to sub system permissions like "measure". Adminstrators would
> > > > of course have much greater access. However for developers, no JON
> > > > account information should be exposed to them in any form."
> > > >
> > > > So this sounds like a role based approach would give them the
> > > > flexibility they need.
> > > To maintain back compatibility we'd need to ensure that hiding info
> > > was
> > > not the default.  Then again, I'm not sure we need back compatibility
> > > for this.
> > 
> > I think backward compat is important here, otherwise we're going to be hearing from people about why the click through to a user's information doesn't work anymore.
> > So I agree hiding info should not be the default.
> 
> Well, should "not hiding" really be the default or should it only be the
> default for existing users/roles? Going forward, I would expect all new
> roles to have the permission disabled or "hiding" by default.
> 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Charles
> > > >> On 02/17/2012 05:42 PM, Jay Shaughnessy wrote:
> > > >>> How about if the user can control whether his info is public or
> > > >>> not?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 2/17/2012 5:35 PM, Ian Springer wrote:
> > > >>>> That would be more work implementation-wise, but if you think
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>> level of granularity is required, that sounds like a good way to
> > > >>>> go.
> > > >>>> One possible use case is an admin wanting to make user details
> > > >>>> visible to employees, but hide them from contractors.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In either case, should hiding user details mean hiding
> > > >>>> everything
> > > >>>> or
> > > >>>> still leaving things like full name and department visible?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 02/17/2012 05:10 PM, Charles Crouch wrote:
> > > >>>>> Doesn't it make more sense for this to be part of the
> > > >>>>> permissions/role infrastructure, rather than server wide
> > > >>>>> setting?
> > > >>>>> e.g.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> VIEW_USER_DETAILS: True/False
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We could add the permission to all existing roles and set it
> > > >>>>> True
> > > >>>>> When you are creating a role, it would be defaulted to True,
> > > >>>>> but
> > > >>>>> an
> > > >>>>> admin could choose to turn it off for particular roles.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Cheers
> > > >>>>> Charles
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>>>>> Yeah, ideally I would just leave everything public too, but
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>> BZ is
> > > >>>>>> saying we should hide everything, so I was trying to find some
> > > >>>>>> sort
> > > >>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>> compromise. Perhaps it should be configurable via a server
> > > >>>>>> setting,
> > > >>>>>> e.g.:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> [ ] yes [x] no  -  Hide User Details - hide details of users
> > > >>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>> non-admin users
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The setting could be false by default, which would keep things
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>> same
> > > >>>>>> as they've always been by default, but give admins who are
> > > >>>>>> hardcore
> > > >>>>>> about privacy a way to hide the details.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 02/17/2012 04:37 PM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> I would leave phone and email open. Because if you see
> > > >>>>>>> something
> > > >>>>>>> bad
> > > >>>>>>> happening on a resource that a user modified or owns or what
> > > >>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>> you,
> > > >>>>>>> you will want to get in touch with them. Being able to find
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> email/phone would be helpful.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hiding phone/email from everyone except for MANAGE_SECURITY
> > > >>>>>>> users
> > > >>>>>>> seems
> > > >>>>>>> less useful.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 16:33 -0500, Ian Springer wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> I'm working on
> > > >>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786159.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Currently, a regular user can view the following details
> > > >>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>>> user (via #Administration/Security/Users):
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> username
> > > >>>>>>>> first name
> > > >>>>>>>> last name
> > > >>>>>>>> department
> > > >>>>>>>> email
> > > >>>>>>>> phone
> > > >>>>>>>> login enabled?
> > > >>>>>>>> ldap user?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The assigned roles of other users cannot be viewed.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I propose we change it so they can only view the following
> > > >>>>>>>> fields:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> username
> > > >>>>>>>> first name
> > > >>>>>>>> last name
> > > >>>>>>>> department
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I think it makes sense to keep these basic details public,
> > > >>>>>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>> useful to know the real name and department for other users
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> system. For example, if I see that user pilhun deleted my
> > > >>>>>>>> WAR
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>> few days
> > > >>>>>>>> earlier, it would be nice if I could find out that pilhun is
> > > >>>>>>>> Heiko
> > > >>>>>>>> Rupp
> > > >>>>>>>> from the JON dev team (facts not obvious from the username),
> > > >>>>>>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>> having to go find an RHQ Admin and ask them. I can see
> > > >>>>>>>> hiding
> > > >>>>>>>> people's
> > > >>>>>>>> phone number and email address for privacy purposes. I'm up
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> air
> > > >>>>>>>> about the two boolean fields.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Users with MANAGE_SECURITY would of course be able to view
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> edit all
> > > >>>>>>>> details for all users, as they can today.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have an opinion on this, as I'd
> > > >>>>>>>> like
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> come
> > > >>>>>>>> up with a plan so I can implement it next week.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>> Ian
> 




More information about the rhq-devel mailing list