I would like to offer the possibility to create advanced selects, more profound than the left joins that can be created via quickviewer.
The easiest way would be to allow the user to insert some source code via "GENERATE SUBROUTINE POOL".
But it would be neccesary for me to ensure that this source code doesn't change any data, start other programms or does anything than evaluating data.
My idea would be to restict the inserted source code to some key-worlds like SELECT, LOOP, IF etc. In this case I would need to find all key words in the inserted source code and check it against some white list.
How could I do this? Are there any ways to circumvent my restrictions in order to do some real damage? Are there other ways to reach my goal?
Securing stuff like this is really hard to do, and it's not a personal limitation or an issue with the platform. You can't get the machine to understand what the programmer is doing - see Halting Problem. Doing a keyword scan for yourself is tedious work. You might want to try SCAN ABAP-SOURCE and take a look at the tables the scanner throws out. However, limiting to the most basic language elements will only get you so far, because for any substantial programming, you'll have to allow for external subroutine calls, and then you're vulnerable to about anything. In my opinion, it's better to hand the specifications to a developer and have the report developed with no dynamic stuff whatsoever. This way, you can also ensure that no incorrect reports are created just because the user hacking away at the SELECT statements didn't know about that cancellation flag...
Related
Very general issue in large integration of verification environment.
Our verification development involves large group across different time zone.
Group has preference to use $plusargs instead factory mechanism.
Probably main reason it is hard to set factory from command line processor,
we have more layers of scripts to start simulation.
Recently i found that same string been used in different environment to control behavior of environment. In this case two different score board used same string to disable some checking and test pass. Both those environment some time created at run time. Also some time it is OK to re-use same string, and it will require owner to be involved.
Is there any way to find duplication like this from final elaborated model, and provide locations in code as a warning?
I thought create our own wrapper, but problem that we are integrating some code that we are not owners as in this case was.
Thanks,
This is a perfect example of how people think they can get things done quicker by not following the recommended UVM methodology and instead create time consuming complexity later on.
I see at least two possible options.
Write a script that searches the source code for $plusargs and hopefully they have used string literals for you to trace for duplicates.
You can override $plusargs with PLI code and have it trace duplicates.
The choice depends on wether you are better at writing Perl/Python or C code.
It it possible to use claims based permissions to secure EF fields using post sharp. We have a multi-tenanted app that we are moving to claims and also have issues of who can read/write to what fields. I saw this but it seems role based http://www.postsharp.net/aspects/examples/security.
As far as I can see it would just be a case of rewriting the ISecurable part.
We were hoping to be able to decorate a field with a permission and silently ignore any write to if if the user did not have permission. We were also hopping that if they read it we could swap in another value e.g. Read salary and get back 0 if you don't have a claim ReadSalary.
Are these standard sort of things to do I've never done any serious AOP. So just wanted a quick confirmation before I mention this as an option.
Yes, it is possible to use PostSharp in this case and it should be pretty easy to convert given example from RBAC to claims based.
One thing that has to be considered is performance. When decorated fields are accessed frequently during processing an use-case (e.g. are read inside a loop) then a lot of time is wasted in redundant security checks. Decorating a method that represent an end-user's use-case would be more appropriate.
I would be afraid to silently swapping values of fields when user has insufficient permission. It could lead to some very surprising results when an algorithm is fed by artificial not-expected data.
I recently found myself using some rather lengthy names for the tables and views involved in a development piece, which got me wondering whether it's possible to create client/database/server level aliases for objects.
Say for example I have a view named dbo.vAlphaBetaGammaDelta . Is there a way (with or without Intellisense) to create a reference to it named dbo.vABGD ?
If not, would there be any downfalls to creating a view of a view or single table aside from maintenance necessary if/when the table schema changes?
I should note that these aliases/views would not be intended for use in other objects, but for alleviation and prevention of carpal tunnel during day-to-day troubleshooting and delving xD
SQL Server allows for the creation of synonyms. That seems to be what you are looking for: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177544.aspx
However, as #MitchWheat mentioned. this seems to be going in the wrong direction. There are a few quite good SSMS plugins available that provide auto completion of long object names (e.g. SQL Prompt). Incidentally those products have trouble with synonyms...
There are many cases where you would like to have synonyms.
Let me state just one for start:
You have a well defined hypothetical name of a table: GlobalStatisticalRecord. Hundreds of lines of code and objects (keys, indexes, etc.) in SQL and elsewhere are referring to this table name.
After 5 years of usage, the abbreviation GSR was accustomed not only among the technical people, but also among the business users. So, to stress again, GSR is now even more recognizable than GlobalStatisticalRecord. However, for the new people that come into the technical team, it is good to keep the name GlobalStatisticalRecord as a table name, since it nicely describes what is the table all about. Now, when writing a quick adhoc query - and that may not be from your tool of choice with all the Intellisense features you are accustom to - then these aliases are really saving your time (and "life" at 2am in the morning when you are frantically trying to diagnose a production problem).
Please, if you never faced a case when you would need this, just don't assume that there is none.
I stressed the adhoc adjective, since I agree that in permanent queries (stored procedures, etc.), for the reasons you pointed out, it is advisable to use the full table names.
In an effort to adhere to the Dry Principle I have some code I feel could easily live in a function. I may need to reuse this code at some point in the future, I may not. Ideally I would have a function that lives just in this piece of code as it provides no benefit to the database as a whole and living inside any of the existing scheme's will create noise when trying to find meaningful and globally useful functions.
I have tried to write a script which uses typical syntax to create a function before my other code and drop the function at the end of the code. This is less than ideal because of potential collisions in the future, but an acceptable risk. Unfortunately I get an error:
'CREATE FUNCTION' must be the first statement in a query batch.
Adding semi-colons before and after the statement unfortunately is not a quick fix. Is there no way to quickly to use functions without building them into the framework of the database?
Or am I asking the wrong question. Is there a way in one script to force separate batches?
If you're truly running a "batch" (e.g. a set of T-SQL commands run in Query analyzer or ossql), then simply use "go". Your "create function" should work if it's the first line after a "go" - again, depending on your T-SQL interpreter. OSSQL: should work. An ADO connection in a VB6 program: definitely WON'T work.
I am developing a Novell Identity Manager driver for Salesforce.com, and am trying to understand the Salesforce.com platform better.
I have had really good success to date. I can read pretty much arbitrary object classes out of SFDC, and create eDirectory objects for them, and what not. This is all done and working nicely. (Publisher Channel). Once I got Query events mapped out, most everything started working in the Publisher Channel.
I am now working on sending events back to SFDC (Subscriber channel) when changes occur in eDirectory.
I am using the upsert() function in the SOAP API, and with Novell Identity Manager, you basically build the SOAP doc, and can see the results as you build it. (You can do it in XSLT or you can use the various allowed tokens to build the document in DirXML Script. I am using DirXML Script which has been working well so far.).
The upshot of that comment is that I can build the SOAP document, see it, to be sure I get it right. Which is usually different than the Java/C++ approach that the sample code usually provides. Much more visual this way.
There are several things about upsert() that I do not entirely understand. I know how to blank a value, should I get that sort of event. Inside the <urn:sObjects> node, add a node like (assuming you get your namespaces declared already):
<urn1:fieldsToNull>FieldName</urn1:fieldsToNull>
I know how to add a value (AttrValue) to the attribute (FieldName), add a node like:
<FieldName>AttrValue</FieldName>
All this works and is pretty straight forward.
The question I have is, can a value in SFDC be multi-valued? In eDirectory, a multi valued attribute being changed, can happen two ways:
All values can be removed, and the new set re-added.
The single value removed can be sent as that sort of event (remove-value) or many values can be removed in one operation.
Looking at SFDC, I only ever see Multi-picklist attributes that seem to be stored in a single entry : or ; delimited. Is there another kind of multi valued attribute managed differently in SFDC? And if so, how would one manipulate it via the SOAP API?
I still have to decide if I want to map those multi-picklists to a single string, or a multi valued attribute of strings. First way is easier, second way is more useful... Hmmm... Choices...
Some references:
I have been using the page Sample SOAP messages to understand what the docs should look like.
Apex Explorer is a kicking tool for browsing the database and testing queries. Much like DBVisualizer does for JDBC connected databases. This would have been so much harder without it!
SoapUi is also required, and a lovely tool!
As far as I know there's no multi-value field other than multi-select picklists (and they map to semicolon-separated string). Generally platform encourages you to create a proper relationship with another (possibly new, custom) table if you're in need of having multiple values associated to your data.
Only other "unusual" thing I can think of is how the OwnerId field on certain objects (Case, Lead, maybe something else) can be used to point to User or Queue record. Looks weird when you are used to foreign key relationships from traditional databases. But this is not identical with what you're asking as there will be only one value at a time.
Of course you might be surpised sometimes with values you'll see in the database depending on the viewing user's locale (stuff like System Administrator profile becoming Systeembeheerder in Dutch). But this will be still a single value, translated on the fly just before the query results are sent back to you.
When I had to perform SOAP integration with SFDC, I've always used WSDL files and most of the time was fine with Java code generated out of them with Apache Axis. Hand-crafting the SOAP message yourself seems... wow, hardcore a bit. Are you sure you prefer visualisation of XML over the creation of classes, exceptions and all this stuff ready for use with one of several out-of-the-box integration methods? If they'll ever change the WSDL I need just to regenerate the classes from it; whereas changes to your SOAP message creation library might be painful...