Repository navigation
Add security warning to mailbox docs - #149295
Conversation
Documentation build overview
455 files changed ·
|
|
When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: |
|
I'll defer to RDM, closing. |
Co-authored-by: R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com>
|
I have made the requested changes; please review again I slightly modified your suggestion @bitdancer to smooth it out a little and to use the standard terminology. |
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @bitdancer: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
|
Friendly little ping @bitdancer, I'd like to clear up our backlog a little. :-) |
|
This warning is too loud (I think a note or even a plain text would be enough), and too vague.v What "all inputs are provided by the local user" does mean? That you cannot use it to read emails sent by non-local users? That you cannot open a mailbox created on other computer? This is obviously not so, otherwise this module would be useless. What "the underlying mailbox storage is accessible only to that user" does mean? I think that you can safely concurrently read a mailbox, until it is not concurrently modified. Then you have the same limitations as for any shared file. I know this is to answer the security report, but the surface of thet report was not clear. |
Every other security warning is in a
The user choses where mailboxes are created, what emails are added, removed etc. If someone else has access to the application and can do so we don't consider it a
The user is the only person with access to the mailbox. If someone else can it or its contents it we don't consider it a @serhiy-storchaka, I'm afraid I don't quite see how to improve this without turning it into an essay. Maybe you have a suggestion? |
|
Hmm. Would it be clearer if we said "data from untrusted sources is never passed to the module API calls"? And perhaps "only trusted users have access to the filesystems accessible to the module"? That doesn't quite capture the problem, though. Can we talk about the file system trust boundary being the responsibility of the hosting environment? That's seems pretty opaque to a non-security professional, though (assuming I even worded it right, since I'm not one ;) I'd be happier if it wasn't a warning box, but I think I lost that argument already ;) |
Co-authored-by: R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com>
|
Sorry for the delay, this slipped of my list. I've applied your suggestion @bitdancer. |
|
If there are no objections, I'll merge this later this week. |
|
I've merged this, this will hopefully put an end to these reports. |
StanFromIreland
added
needs backport to 3.14
|
Thanks @StanFromIreland for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
|
Thanks @StanFromIreland for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.15. |
|
GH-159666 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
|
GH-159667 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.15 branch. |
6 participants
CC @bitdancer, you should have gotten a series of notifications just there. I suggest adding a security warning, they collectively are the motivation for this change.