Conference azur::mcc

4867.0. "Security/Access problems" by STKHLM::BERGGREN (Nils Berggren EIS/Project dpmt, Sweden DTN 876-8287) Tue Apr 13 1993 03:33

Hi all,

Just realized at a customer site that security is not what
it should be within DECmcc. 

The customer requires that only some operators should have the 
right to create alarm rules, but that everyone should be able to
look at alarm rules and enable them.

"easily done" I said, just use ACL (we're talking VMS here) on some 
files, MCC_ALARMS_INSTANCE_MIR and *_ATTRIBUTES_MIR,  ACL=(IDENT=GROUP1, 
ACCESS=READ  and  IDENT=GROUP2, ACCESS=READ+WRITE) and divide the operators 
into two UIC-groups.

Since I said this, I had to realize it as well, and to my big surprise,

	IT DID NOT WORK !!!!!!

The operators in group 1 couldn't see the alarm rules since they couldn't
open the alarms instance mir.  Using AUDIT, I saw that when switching from 
members view to rule view (in the IMPM) we're opening the 
MCC_ALARMS_INSTANCE_MIR.DAT with READ+WRITE access.  Changing the ACL to 
allow RAED+WRITE access to the instance-file I tried to do a SHOW CHAR
on a rule.  It didn't work either, I have to have READ+WRITE access to the 
MCC_ALARMS_ATTRIBUTE_MIR.DAT even though I only want to READ information....

Now I'm in big trouble.  We already have serious difficulties regarding 
security (discussed in earlier notes reagrding operator categories and
restricting who should have the right to do what within DECmcc) but I could
never realize that this would cause any problems.   

This is not satisfactory, and I think we're coming closer to a "No thank 
you, but we'll drop DECmcc due to its lack of security"


Why open files with READ+WRITE acces when this is not needed?  Could this
be regarded as a bug and have it QAR:ed so that we could get a new ALARMS_FM
out????


	This is very urgent since we're in the stage of doing
	some functional test at the customer site, and if this
	fails there's a big potential of loosing a lot of 
	business with this customer who is Digital's biggest
	customer in Sweden.
	
	Please help me out
	
	/Nils

    Yes, it is a bug.  Yes, it is QARed.  However, I believe it is a Medium
    Priority problem.  We have our hands full with just Show-Stoppers and
    High Priority problems.
    
    Is it possible to have a copy of the Alarms MIR being pointed to by the
    MCC_ALARMS_LOCATION logical?  This user-local copy could be set up with
    read-write access.
    
    -Matt.

    re .1
    
>>> Is it possible to have a copy of the Alarms MIR being pointed to by the
>>> MCC_ALARMS_LOCATION logical?  This user-local copy could be set up with
>>> read-write access.
    
    Sorry, but I don't get it...  How would a copy of the Alarms MIR
    help?