=== Guest52828 is now known as StevenK [06:46] wgrant: So I was wondering if that it isn't so much for security, but to ensure requests are not accidently processed twice, eg. when a client retries a request unnecessarily. I don't think we need to care about that, as our calls are idempotent? [06:46] wgrant: The person to ask about the security side would be the security team, since they spend all their time thinking about this stuff. [06:51] stub: If it was to avoid accidental double-processing it wouldn't apply to GETs. [06:52] wgrant: OAuth doesn't dictate that GETs are idempotent, does it? That is just sanity, not the spec. [06:52] stub: The OAuth spec says that nonces and timestamps aren't used for PLAINTEXT. [06:52] So it would have to be local, non-RFC reasoning [06:52] And our GETs are idempotent. [06:53] yeah, anyway, that is the best I can come up with. [06:54] Hmm [06:54] Oh [06:54] I guess some people still had that "wouldn't it be great if we let everyone not use TLS" braindeadness back then. [06:55] So perhaps they envisaged non-PLAINTEXT signatures in the future. [06:56] But it's not 1997, so that's not a concern any more. [07:02] -According to the oauth specification , for a [07:02] 181 -given client, an application should not accept a timestamp older than the most [07:02] 182 -recent timestamp received. [07:02] That is an interesting property that we lose [07:04] Only reduces the window from a security pov. I guess clients don't really care - if they resend requests, it is by choice. [07:05] stub: We always left a more liberal window anyway [07:06] A full minute, in fact [07:06] So unless a client is buggily retrying requests more than a minute later, nothing changes. [07:12] wgrant: Go for it from my POV. Maybe run it by the security team to see if they have any rationale for keeping it. [07:14] stub: Thanks. === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha [14:14] cprov__: https://code.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/bug-1201984/+merge/225011 [14:16] wgrant: on it === cprov__ is now known as cprov [14:21] wgrant: are you sure is_enabled is equivalent to lp.Append in this context ? [14:22] wgrant: I mean, won't we list PPA alternatives for which the user cannot upload to (exception will be raised, I presume) [14:23] cprov: It doesn't have to be exactly equivalent. getPPAsForUser just has to approximate it; the permission check is done properly later and the copy will be rejected. [14:24] The permission check could also fail today, eg. if the permission was revoked between the request and the running of the job. [14:24] wgrant: true, the permission check is delegated to the job itself. [14:31] wgrant: I think users are already used to check copy results in the destination PPA, but that will certainly make it more importantly. [14:34] They can fail for heaps of different reasons. [14:34] This is a pretty rare one. [14:34] Thanks. === tasdomas` is now known as tasdomas === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha