added docs on the new security utilities from Symfony 2.2 #1858
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fabpot
added a commit
to symfony/symfony
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2012
This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- aecc9b1 fixed tests when OpenSsl is not enabled in PHP, renamed a missnamed test, added missing license doc blocks ca567b5 fixed CS 5cdf696 added a SecureRandomInterface 234f725 rename String to StringUtils 5849855 moved the secure random dep for remember me as a constructor argument 248703f renamed Prng to SecureRandom c0c8972 simplified the Prng code e5dc7af moved the secure random class from JMSSecurityExtraBundle to Symfony (closes #3595) Discussion ---------- [2.2][Security] Add a PRNG (closes #3595) As per #3595, I have moved the secure random class from JMSSecurityExtraBundle to Symfony. It has more impact than I expected ;) As you will see, the implementation has been refactored a bit. The most notable change is that Doctrine support has been moved to the bridge with the addition of a proper Doctrine seed provider (Doctrine is not a special case anymore). The Doctrine configuration has been moved to the DoctrineBundle: doctrine/DoctrineBundle#91 schmittjoh/JMSSecurityExtraBundle#65 removes the code that has been moved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-07-05T13:26:01Z I'm all for more security features, and both the String class & the Prng class for wrapping openssl make a lot of sense IMO, but I fail to see the use of the rest. If we just want a seed to have a fallback in case openssl is missing, I'd rather have a secret in the config.yml than a million classes to store the same secret in the DB. Maybe I'm missing something though? /cc @schmittjoh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by schmittjoh at 2012-07-05T16:32:10Z Having the configuration in different places (SecurityBundle & DoctrineBundle) feels a bit weird. I would prefer an approach similar to ACL, or the user provider/firewall section with factories. The latter being a bit more work to implement and the former potentially asking for complaints about too tight coupling to Doctrine. Regarding testing, we probably need to move the disableOpenSsl method to the SecureRandom class in order to allow OpenSSL to be disabled for testing and we also need to change the byte generation algorithm to produce the same output for the same starting seed. I agree that it does not make sense to introduce an interface for SecureRandom as only the seed providers should be replaced. As for the seed itself, it is constantly updated and does not stay the same as in the beginning. Thus, we need a provider that we can write to, and not only read from. I'm also not sure about using OpenSSL on Windows as I have read enough resources which claimed that the entropy on Windows is not always good (including OpenSSL docs). Always using the custom seed provider at least always ensured proper entropy even if OpenSSL's speed issues have been fixed in newer PHP versions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-07-05T16:44:24Z @schmittjoh everything is in SecurityBundle now as it does not use a database anymore --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-07-05T16:44:59Z and there is no seed provider anymore either --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by schmittjoh at 2012-07-05T16:53:39Z Not having a seed provider is not such a good idea, but having a file-based seed provider is. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-07-05T17:01:18Z @schmittjoh why would you need to replace the seed provider? Don't you think that people serious about security to the point that they would want a stronger seed provider would enable openssl instead? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-07-05T17:06:50Z Well, what I meant is that there is no interchangeable provider anymore. The Prng class uses the file directly. And btw, I think the Prng class should be mockable for tests, so it should either have an interface or not be final (I vote for adding an interface) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by jalliot at 2012-07-09T18:46:12Z @fabpot @schmittjoh What about using more fallbacks for `openssl_random_pseudo_bytes` like in @Seldaek's post ["Unpredictable hashes for humans"](http://seld.be/notes/unpredictable-hashes-for-humans)? Trying `mcrypt_create_iv` first might also be faster. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-07-10T08:52:46Z @jalliot I think mcrypt should be after if you make it use /dev/urandom, not 100% sure but openssl is probably higher quality than urandom. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by schmittjoh at 2012-07-10T09:12:07Z The fallback algorithm that I added should be enough (it passes the statistical randomness tests). On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jordi Boggiano < reply@reply.github.com > wrote: > @jalliot I think mcrypt should be after if you make it use /dev/urandom, > not 100% sure but openssl is probably higher quality than urandom. > > --- > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: > #4763 (comment) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-10-13T17:20:06Z @fabpot please send a PR to the doc so that this can be merged 😃 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-10-13T17:22:08Z hmm, actually, some comments have not been taken into account yet so it is not ready to be merged --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-10-27T07:14:43Z you forgot the SecureRandom file --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2012-10-27T08:49:54Z I think I've addressed all the comments. If everyone agree with the current implementation, I'm going to start updating the documentation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2012-10-27T10:51:15Z I've fixed the remaining CS issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2012-10-28T07:00:31Z Documentation is here: symfony/symfony-docs#1858
weaverryan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2012
added docs on the new security utilities from Symfony 2.2
|
Merged! This is really cool stuff actually - we've come a long way :). |
weaverryan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2012
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
see symfony/symfony#4763