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

Lock deposits to a specific client key #32

Closed
thegcat opened this issue May 3, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Lock deposits to a specific client key #32

thegcat opened this issue May 3, 2015 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@thegcat
Copy link
Collaborator

thegcat commented May 3, 2015

Deposits in AC should only be possible from a protected client.

@thegcat thegcat self-assigned this May 3, 2015
@thegcat thegcat added this to the Required for AC milestone May 3, 2015
@thegcat
Copy link
Collaborator Author

thegcat commented May 15, 2015

@fabian-rump I'd like your thoughts/input on this:

I can define scopes specific applications/tokens are allowed to access, and can limit the ability to use an endpoint to certain scopes (I could probably use the scopes to limit other stuff to, but let's go with just the endpoint for now).

There is one default scope public and the additional scopes checkout, deposit and admin (it's probably obvious what is for what). Keeping in mind that the public scope also requires an app/token, i.e. that public operations are also only possible for "trusted" clients, my proposal would be

  • cart operations (show, create, update): checkout
  • look up product or user by identifier: public (could lead to a slurping of all user data though, so will need to be more fine-grained later)
  • product operations (show and index): public (could leak the current stock, but who cares?)
  • cart payment: checkout
  • transaction filter: public
  • deposit: deposit
  • user show: public

Do you think that would be enough to cover our bases for Aachen?

@thegcat
Copy link
Collaborator Author

thegcat commented May 15, 2015

(the proposed stuff has been added in 6e34751 and should be installed on heroku)

@fabian-marquardt
Copy link
Collaborator

I think your proposal is perfectly fine for the Aachen deployment/scenario. Though we could agree on a more fine-grained access scheme later (e.g. read-only permission for certain entities etc.)

@thegcat
Copy link
Collaborator Author

thegcat commented May 17, 2015

It should be made more fine-grained later indeed, but for Aachen it should be enough :-)

Closing this issue as this is good for Aachen, I have opened #46 for the other stuff.

@thegcat thegcat closed this as completed May 17, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants