[rabbitmq-discuss] RabbitMQ logs, ticket check
rabbitmq-discuss_efine at usa.net
Tue Aug 5 16:12:55 BST 2008
Um, does this mean that:
add_realm <VHostPath> <RealmName>
delete_realm <VHostPath> <RealmName>
set_permissions <UserName> <VHostPath> <RealmName> [<Permission> ...]
Furthermore, does this mean that our code will have to remove all references
to realms? Or are you leaving all that syntax in place but just making it a
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Ben Hood <0x6e6562 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Edwin, David,
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Edwin Fine
> <rabbitmq-discuss_efine at usa.net> wrote:
> > I get the same issue (for the same reason) using the Erlang client,
> > "Lax ticket check mode: ignoring cross-realm access for ticket 101"
> > I'd appreciate an explanation as to what changed between 1.3.0 and 1.4.0
> > make this happen, and a suggestion on what I need to do to get rid of the
> > warning.
> By default, strict ticket checking is turned off, which means that
> Rabbit will not enforce strict realm based ACL.
> When this is turned off, and a client sends down an invalid ticket,
> this will be treated as a NOOP and merely logged.
> This is useful for development scenarios.
> Usually you would turn this on in production, in which you actually
> cared about this type of ACL.
> Having said all of this, the whole topic of realm based access control
> is going to disappear very soon.
> We have decided that because although realms are in the spec, no other
> AMQP broker has bothered to implement them, and hence we should follow
> Furthermore, realms are confusing, too fine grained as an ACL concept
> and the cost of their maintenance is not really justified by the
> minimal benefits they offer.
> For example, in Rabbit 1.3.0, 12% of the entire code base was
> dedicated to realm handling.
> Having said all of this, and for the record, what has changed between
> 1.3 and 1.4 is that a bug has been introduced, which we have already
> noted in our internal bug system.
> But instead of fixing this bug, because we are deleting realms anyway,
> we have decided to push through the realm deletion patch first
> (bug18994 in hg refers).
> We are in the late stages of QA'ing this, it will be merged into the
> default branch soon and upon which a new release will be made.
For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert - Arthur C. Clarke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss