Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Need for clarification : choosing security key for Response callback of services #114

Open
IswaryaaS opened this issue Dec 12, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
question (open) Further information is requested

Comments

@IswaryaaS
Copy link
Collaborator

IswaryaaS commented Dec 12, 2023

For services like /v1/switch-redundant-transmitter-pair-off, /v1/reactivate-transmitters-of-link, /v1/provide-transmitter-status-of-parallel-links we have a callback "Response".
In this callback, we send respective response to the "requestor-receive-operation" mentioned in request-body.

As per understanding, the requesting application (data of which is given in request body of the service) may be any application ( same AIPS or any external application). And we need not create any entry in load-file like http-client or operation-client for the request and we will store them in temporary RAM ((Kindly let me know if my understanding is not correct at this point)).

As per above understanding, if the request received is from a different application, we would not know the security key of the requestor-receive-operation and this might lead to unauthorized error response.

Proposal: Security could be removed for the receiving operations. For example: in AIPS :: /v1/receive-power-saving-activation-status, /v1/receive-power-saving-deactivation-status and /v1/receive-transmitter-status-of-parallel-links. Also corresponding receiving services in external applications could be avoided with security key.

Proposal because of the following constraint:

  • In order for AIPS to know the security key, it should have a operation-client and a link to be created between the operation-client of AIPS and the operation-server of the requesting application. Since, we donot have a operation-client, we could not store the operation-key.
  • On the other hand, we cannot pass the security key through a REST API, which would lead to security breach.

Kindly let me know your views and correct me if I am wrong.

@IswaryaaS IswaryaaS added the question (open) Further information is requested label Dec 12, 2023
@kmohr-soprasteria
Copy link
Collaborator

kmohr-soprasteria commented Jan 22, 2024

Please refer to openBackhaul/ApplicationPattern#941:

  • ResponseReceiverPaths must not be protected by an OperationKey, they shall not contain any security statement.
  • Existing specifications that have not yet been fully implemented must be corrected accordingly as part of a BugFix release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question (open) Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants