> > Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.
> 
> 
> ... and change the documentation accordingly (Suzannah!?). Installing midas these days does not really make sense, since normally only one 
> users uses it on a given machine.
> 
> Stefan

I understand. Anyway, I preferred to install MIDAS in the /opt/midas folder to remain consistent with the other programs that we are using for 
our experiment (Pyrame and Calicoes from LLR). I am also using Linux systemd to enable mhttpd on startup (and other handy features like auto-
restart after a crash) and unfortunally CentOS doesn't support to enable systemd units as a non-root user.
So in my particular case, perhaps it made some sense to install MIDAS in a folder other than the source code folder
Giorgio

> > Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.
> 
> 
> ... and change the documentation accordingly (Suzannah!?). Installing midas these days does not really make sense, since normally only one 
> users uses it on a given machine.
> 
> Stefan

I understand. Anyway, I preferred to install MIDAS in the /opt/midas folder to be consistent with the other programs (Pyrame and Calicoes from LLR) that we are using for our experiment (they are all installed in the /opt folder). Moreover, I am using Linux systemd to enable mhttpd on startup (and other handy features like auto-restart after a crash). And quite unfortunately CentOS doesn't support to start systemd units as a non-root user.
So in my particular case, perhaps it made some sense to install MIDAS in a folder other than the source code folder.

Giorgio

> Here is the list of mhttpd magic URLs.

See additional magic URLs at the very bottom:

> 
> http "get" path:
> 
> handle_http_message()
> handle_http_get()
> ?mjsonrpc_schema -> serve mjsonrpc_get_schema() // JSON RPC Schema in JSON format
> ?mjsonrpc_schema_text -> serve mjsonrpc_schema_to_text() // same, but human-readable
> handle_decode_get()
> decode_get()
> interprete()
> 
> http "post" path:
> 
> handle_http_message()
> handle_http_post()
> ?mjsonrpc -> serve mjsonrpc_decode_post_data() // process RPC request
> handle_decode_post()
> decode_post()
> - maybe decode file attachment
> interprete()
> 
> interprete() path:
> 
> url contains favicon.{ico,png} -> send_icon()
> url contains mhttpd.css -> send_css() (see ODB /Experiment/CSS File) // obsolete? see midas.css below
> url ends with "mp3" -> send_resource(url) // alarm sound
> url contains midas.js -> send_resource("midas.js")
> url contains midas.css -> send_resource("midas.css")
> url ... ditto mhttpd.js
> url ... ditto obsolete.js
> url ... ditto controls.js
> cmd is "example" -> send_resource("example.html")
> ?script -> cm_exec_script(), see ODB /Script/...
> ?customscript -> same, see ODB /CustomScript/...
> cmd is "start" -> send resource start.html
> cmd is blank -> send resource status.html
> cmd is "status" -> send resource status.html
> cmd is "newODB" -> send resource "odb.html" // not used at the moment
> cmd is "programs" -> programs.html
> cmd is "alarms" -> alarms.html
> cmd is "transition" -> transition.html
> cmd is "messages" -> messages.html
> cmd is "config" and url is not "HS/" -> config.html
> cmd is "chat" -> chat.html
> cmd is "buffers" -> buffers.html
> // elog section
> cmd is "Show elog" -> elog
> cmd is "Query elog" -> elog
> cmd is "New elog" -> elog
> cmd is "Edit elog" -> elog
> cmd is "Reply elog" -> elog
> cmd is "Last elog" -> elog
> cmd is "Submit Query" -> elog
> // end of elog section
> url is "spinning-wheel.gif" -> send_resource("spinning-wheel.gif")

// "new custom pages" moved to the bottom

> // section for old AJAX requests
> cmd is "jset", "jget", etc -> javascript_commands()
> // commented out: send_resource(command+".html") // if cmd is "start" will send start.html
> cmd is "mscb" -> show_mscb_page()
> cmd is "help" -> show_help_page()
> cmd is "trigger" -> send RPC RPC_MANUAL_TRIG
> cmd is "Next subrun" -> set ODB "/Logger/Next subrun" to TRUE
> cmd is "cancel" -> redirect to getparam("redir")
> cmd is "set" -> show_set_page() // set ODB value
> cmd is "find" -> show_find_page()
> cmd is "CNAF" or url is "CNAF" -> show_cnaf_page()
> cmd is "elog" -> redirect to external ELOG or send_resource("elog_show.html")
> cmd starts with "Elog last" -> send_resource("elog_query.html") // Elog last N days & co
> cmd is "Create Elog from this page" -> redirect to "?cmd=new elog" // called from ODB editor
> cmd is "Submit elog" -> submit_elog() // usually a POST request from the "elog_edit.html"
> cmd is "elog_att" -> show_elog_attachment()
> cmd is "accept" -> what does this do?!?
> cmd is "eqtable" -> show_eqtable_path() // page showing equipment variables as a table ("slow control page")
> // section for the sequencer
> cmd is "sequencer" -> show_seq_page()
> cmd is "start script" -> seq
> cmd is "cancel script" -> seq
> cmd is "load script" -> ...
> cmd is "new script" -> ...
> cmd is "save script" -> ...
> cmd is "edit script" -> ...
> cmd is "spause" -> ...
> cmd is "sresume" -> ...
> cmd is "stop immeditely" -> ...
> cmd is "stop after current run" -> ...
> cmd is "cancel stop after current run" -> ...
> // end of sequencer
> cmd is "odb" -> show_odb_page()

if ODB path URL exists, redirect to the odb editor with odb_path=URL // this restores the old URL scheme for the ODB editor

> cmd is "custom" -> show_custom_page()

odb entry exists "/Custom/Images/URL/Background" -> show_custom_gif(URL)
odb entry exists "/Custom/URL" or "/Custom/URL&" or "/Custom/URL!" -> show_custom_page(URL)
-- inside show_custom_page(URL):
-- if URL contains ".gif" -> show_custom_gif(URL)
-- if URL contains "." (i.e. "bnmr.css") -> show_custom_file(URL) -> send_file()
-- otherwise process custom page (substitute <odb> tags, etc)

// section "new custom pages"
if ODB /Custom exists,
create blank ODB /Custom/Path if it does not exist yet
if URL contains "/" or DIR_SEPARATOR, reject it with an error (prevent escape from file jail)
if ODB /Custom/Path is not blank, concatenate value of ODB /CustomPath and the URL
if this file exists, send_file() it.
// end of "new custom pages" section

try send_resource(URL) // this serves "status.html" & co

> show_error()
> 
> K.O.

K.O.

> The biggest problem so far we have seen is with some pages having incorrect form submission
> settings - some forms use the wrong form "action" attribute, which worked before, we do not know
> why, and definitely does not work now. This is not something that we can fix on the midas side.

Make sure you check any page which has a GIF image with bars and labels. I believe the new URL system has an issue there (mayby still an explicity /CS/... somewhere).

Stefan

> 
> That sounds fine, as long as it is clearly documented.
> 

I am a true believer in the two-man rule. One person writes the code, another person
documents it - this keeps everything honest and ensures that at least one
person (the documenter) understands what is going on. (as the coder, I can easily
write documentation that nobody understands, or that is completely wrong).

> > Third, the /Custom/Path should really go away.
> Yes, I agree that /Custom/Path should go away.

/Custom/Path as a resource search path or
/Custom/Path that is prepended to file names of old-style custom pages?

The second use is safe and does not need to be removed.

The first use is now redundant - files are now also served through send_resource()
through the normal resource path, that includes ODB /Experiment/Resource
(something that has been there for a long time).

K.O.

> > We have several large installations at TRIUMF that use the old-style custom pages - MUSR, BNMR/BNQR, TITAN (and more?) -
> > none of these experiments are going away any time soon and none of these custom pages are rewriting themselves.
> 
> Then you have a problem. Last time I told you that the new URL scheme breaks parts of the custom pages, especially the ones containing GIF images with labels on it. You then said "these experiments have to bite the bullet and 
> change it", and I proceeded. Now you tell me that this will not happen. So please be aware that these experiments do have a problem and probably are stuck with an older midas version.
> 

Yes, there is a problem and some adjustment is needed.

I do not think the new URL scheme requires us to abandon existing experiments.

At this point I am trying to minimize the number of adjustments required, for example:

If we do not need to move files around (and create symlinks), it is good - so the old scheme of saving file names in ODB lives on
If we do not need to edit every file to adjust every URL, it is good - so now that http://blah/CS/custom_page is gone (no more "CS/"), http://blah/custom_page had to be implemented
If we do not need to replace all the ODB /Alias entries, http://blah/ODB_PATH now redirects to http://blah/?cmd=odb&odb_path=ODB_PATH and all the old aliases to ODB still work

I am going through these things as I discover them with Suzannah.

The biggest problem so far we have seen is with some pages having incorrect form submission
settings - some forms use the wrong form "action" attribute, which worked before, we do not know
why, and definitely does not work now. This is not something that we can fix on the midas side.

K.O.

I stop the discussion here because it goes in circles. We can't convince each others, so somebody has to give up, and that's me.

> We have several large installations at TRIUMF that use the old-style custom pages - MUSR, BNMR/BNQR, TITAN (and more?) -
> none of these experiments are going away any time soon and none of these custom pages are rewriting themselves.

Then you have a problem. Last time I told you that the new URL scheme breaks parts of the custom pages, especially the ones containing GIF images with labels on it. You then said "these experiments have to bite the bullet and 
change it", and I proceeded. Now you tell me that this will not happen. So please be aware that these experiments do have a problem and probably are stuck with an older midas version.

> > This area is much better protected than the ODB, since people have to physically log into 
> > a machine to change it.
> 
> Nope. You can create symlinks from mhttpd by putting running the "ln -s" command from ODB "/Programs/xxx/Start Command"

You can also set a start command "cat /etc/passwd | sendmail me@triumf.ca" and you get the password file ;-)

Stefan

> Just set 
> /Custom/Path = /./ 
> which is allowed right now and then access etc/passwd, which translates to /./etc/passwd and then you get the password file.

Nope. http://localhost:8080/etc/passwd yields this error regardless of the value of /Custom/Path: MIDAS error: Invalid custom file name 'etc/passwd' contains '/' or '/'

> We should make up our mind:
> 1) We trust each user who has access to mhttpd. The accessing /etc/passwd is not a problem and I don't understand all the fuzz we had recently. Why all the recent work?

Stefan, "/etc/passwd" is a stand-in for "$HOME/.ssh/id_rsa". Surely stealing the ssh keys is a very bad thing.

> 2) We do not trust users connected via mhttpd, but we trust users who can log in to the online machine.
> If we do not trust users having access to mhttpd, then it does not make sense in my mind to fix one hole and keep a few other open.
> You correctly mentioned the /Programs/xxx/Start command, and there are a few others, like executing scripts directly. Either we fix all (known) holes or we don't bother.

I see a distinction between accessing a magic URL (a read-only operation) and a targeted attack (editing odb, etc).

In the first case, it's a script-kiddie "let's try http:blah/etc/passwd, http:blah/../etc/passwd, etc, bingo!).

In the second case, if it's a targeted attack, forget about it. If an attacker wants in, they will get it. Have secure backups, etc.

Plus eventually we will restore the user access controls - read-only access, operator access (can start runs, edit history plots) and Q access. Only
this very last one would allow editing of ODB.

> 3) We do not trust users who can log in to the online machine, since they can just cat /etc/passwd. But then why give them access to the online machine?

ssh foo cat /etc/passwd is normal
http://foo/etc/passwd is not normal

> So which of the three options would you prefer?

I try to think simple:
if something worked yesterday and works today, let it be
if we add something new, it should not be obviously insecure

> 
> Thanks to the nice public discussion here on the forum (and I still think this is the correct way to discuss these things), all forum subscribers are now aware of several security holes.
> So either they are evil, then we have to fix all (known) holes. Or we trust  them, then we don't care.
> 

Here is the elephant in the room. mhttpd has never gone through a security audit. It's easy to find
security holes (buffer overflows) can be easily found by "grep sprintf".

To me, this means that access to mhttpd always must be password-protected.

Password protection requires https.

The built-in mongoose https server is as safe as the mongoose library (probably yes) and the openssl library (yes-ish, see openbsd libressl)

The external apache https takes a few minutes to setup, as the "industry standard", it is trusted to be safe.

>
> > Stefan, we already allow execution of arbitrary commands via ODB "/Programs/xxx/Start Command".
> This is on the same level as accessing /etc/passwd. So either we allow all of them or none of them. Something in between absolutely does not make sense to me.
>

Ok, we have identified our difference of opinion:

I think serving arbitrary files over http is a bad idea (on general principles)
and you think it is okey because there are other ways to get to those files.

Fair enough.

K.O.

P.S. Hmm... not fair enough.

I am now thinking about web-browser security -
suppose some kind of cross-site or cross-tab exploit comes out and suddenly
arbitrary web pages loaded from facebook.com (or worse) gain access
to the mhttpd web pages if both are open at the same time.

We may be still protected by obscurity and they presumably do not know how to change
things in odb, but I think it is a good idea to protect ourselves at least
against drive-by attacks (try http:blah/etc/passwd, try http:blah/../etc/passwd, etc,
replace /etc/passwd by some other secret file, try again - think  ssh keys, etc).

K.O.

> Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.


... and change the documentation accordingly (Suzannah!?). Installing midas these days does not really make sense, since normally only one 
users uses it on a given machine.

Stefan

> > > - mhttpd cannot serve /etc/passwd by default as "/" is forbidden in file names added to /Custom/Path.
> > You do this with a simple
> > if (custom_path == "/")
> > which does work but does not cover cases such as
> > "/./"
> 
> Hmm... and this is just fine. Since I do not allow "/" in the file name, they can
> set the resource path to any alias for the root filesystem, but they cannot
> get to "/etc/passwd" unless they run mhttpd in /etc or set /Custom/Path to "/etc".

Just set 

/Custom/Path = /./ 

which is allowed right now and then access etc/passwd, which translates to /./etc/passwd and then you get the password file. 

We should make up our mind:

1) We trust each user who has access to mhttpd. The accessing /etc/passwd is not a problem and I don't understand all the fuzz we had recently. Why all the recent work?

2) We do not trust users connected via mhttpd, but we trust users who can log in to the online machine. If we do not trust users having access to mhttpd, then it does not make sense in my mind to fix one hole and keep a few other open. You correctly 
mentioned the /Programs/xxx/Start command, and there are a few others, like executing scripts directly. Either we fix all (known) holes or we don't bother.

3) We do not trust users who can log in to the online machine, since they can just cat /etc/passwd. But then why give them access to the online machine?

So which of the three options would you prefer?

 
> All these cases are not normal use of mhttpd, not "oops, I made a mistake"
> and not "I will kludge my paths just for today just for this one experiment". They
> have to make an explicit decision to break the security.

Accessing /etc/passwd is an explicit decision as well and does not come by "oops, I made a mistake"

> These days, I am thinking that we should not try to prevent all insecure uses of midas,
> but at least we should make the default configuration secure and disallow some of the more
> obviously insecure configurations (i.e. do not permit password protection without https).

Thanks to the nice public discussion here on the forum (and I still think this is the correct way to discuss these things), all forum subscribers are now aware of several security holes. So either they are evil, then we have to fix all (known) holes. Or we trust 
them, then we don't care.

> Stefan, we already allow execution of arbitrary commands via ODB "/Programs/xxx/Start Command".
> 
> So for all practical purposes, somebody with access to the mhttpd web pages also has shell access
> to the user account running mhttpd.

Agree. And this is on the same level as accessing /etc/passwd. So either we allow all of them or none of them. Something in between absolutely does not make sense to me.

To shorten the discussion: I think what we do right now does not make sense, but I do not insist of changing it. If people want it like that, fine with me. Just a waste of your time fixing the "/" path.

Stefan

> First, I did not propose to give up the /Custom tree in the ODB, sorry for the misunderstanding.
> We still need it in order to display the menu with the custom pages at the left side navigation bar.
> In principle all can stay like it is, except we remove /Custom/Path and rewrite the file server to restrict it only 
> to the two mentioned directories.
> 

We have several large installations at TRIUMF that use the old-style custom pages - MUSR, BNMR/BNQR, TITAN (and more?) -
none of these experiments are going away any time soon and none of these custom pages are rewriting themselves.

So, I think we are stuck with supporting old-style custom pages in the short and in the long term, unless we decide to abandon these existing users of MIDAS.

And the old-style custom pages come with the old-style scheme of keeping file names in ODB. Removing
it will require experiments to reorganize their filesystems (different custom pages may come from different
git repositories on different disks - not trivially placable all in the same directory).

Plus some people (including myself) like to have some things explicitly specified - I want to know that
this page loads this file without having to guess where in a search path it came from today.

>
> Thomas proposed a "deprecated" mhttpd command line option.
>

"deprecated" does not work.

"we removed it because it stopped working and we cannot fix it" works,
"do not use it for new experiments" works (until a user comes back with "but I really like this feature!")
"we will remove it at an unknown future date because we think nobody should use it" does not work.

>
> As an alternative, I propose to make a symbolic link from <exptab>/resources to where the old /Custom/Path was pointing 
> to. This should work as well, and we don't have to implement a parameter in mhttpd.
> 

All experiments at TRIUMF that use old-style custom pages do not use /Custom/Path. In the new scheme
of things, setting /Custom/Path to anything other than blank will break them.

>
> Third, the /Custom/Path should really go away.
>

For once, I agree. /Custom/Path did not exist and should not have been added.

> We are all concerned that people can read security critical files from the whole file system.

Only in the default configuration and in configurations that would realistically used by an experiment. This
excludes the case of "/Custom/Path" set to "/etc" - not the default and unlikely to be used by any experiment.

> To read those files, people have to access to mhttpd, so they have to know at least the authentication credentials to pass the Apache firewall in front of mhttpd or 
> whatever. This means they have access to the ODB, and then they can simply change /Custom/Path to "/" and voila - they have again access to /etc/passwd.

Nope. They have to set /Custom/Path to "/etc" or start mhttpd under "/etc" or point /Custom/Path to a symlink to /etc. (mhttpd will not serve "etc/passwd", "/" in the filename is not permitted).

> This is why I propose symbolic links on the file system.

Some people dislike symlinks.
Some filesystems do not implement symlinks. (should we prevent mhttpd from running on the ms-dos fat filesystem "just because"?)

> This area is much better protected than the ODB, since people have to physically log into 
> a machine to change it.

Nope. You can create symlinks from mhttpd by putting running the "ln -s" command from ODB "/Programs/xxx/Start Command"

K.O.

> First, I did not propose to give up the /Custom tree in the ODB, sorry for the misunderstanding. We still need it in order to display the menu with the custom pages at the left side navigation bar. In principle all can stay like it is, except we remove /Custom/Path and rewrite the file server to restrict it only 
> to the two mentioned directories.
> 
> Second, to keep the compatibility with running experiments, we have to make the move over as simply as possible. Thomas proposed a "deprecated" mhttpd command line option. As an alternative, I propose to make a symbolic link from <exptab>/resources to where the old /Custom/Path was pointing 
> to. This should work as well, and we don't have to implement a parameter in mhttpd.

That sounds fine, as long as it is clearly documented.

> Third, the /Custom/Path should really go away. We are all concerned that people can read security critical files from the whole file system. To read those files, people have to access to mhttpd, so they have to know at least the authentication credentials to pass the Apache firewall in front of mhttpd or 
> whatever. This means they have access to the ODB, and then they can simply change /Custom/Path to "/" and voila - they have again access to /etc/passwd. This is why I propose symbolic links on the file system. This area is much better protected than the ODB, since people have to physically log into 
> a machine to change it.

Yes, I agree that /Custom/Path should go away.

Cheers,
Thomas

> > - mhttpd cannot serve /etc/passwd by default as "/" is forbidden in file names added to /Custom/Path.
> You do this with a simple
> if (custom_path == "/")
> which does work but does not cover cases such as
> "/./"

Hmm... and this is just fine. Since I do not allow "/" in the file name, they can
set the resource path to any alias for the root filesystem, but they cannot
get to "/etc/passwd" unless they run mhttpd in /etc or set /Custom/Path to "/etc".

All these cases are not normal use of mhttpd, not "oops, I made a mistake"
and not "I will kludge my paths just for today just for this one experiment". They
have to make an explicit decision to break the security.

These days, I am thinking that we should not try to prevent all insecure uses of midas,
but at least we should make the default configuration secure and disallow some of the more
obviously insecure configurations (i.e. do not permit password protection without https).

Take the root password as an example. Empty root passwd is not permitted, but
root password set to "root" is allowed (some password tools may throw a warning).

>
> Still, in my opinion we should not have a path in the ODB. The custom path should be hard-wired and combined with symbolic links if necessary. The custom HTML pages under /Custom in the ODB have to be scanned for ".."s.
> 

Stefan, we already allow execution of arbitrary commands via ODB "/Programs/xxx/Start Command".

So for all practical purposes, somebody with access to the mhttpd web pages also has shell access
to the user account running mhttpd.

K.O.

> 
> PS other than the code peculiar to our experiment, I have made a little modification to the MIDAS install 
> Makefile (I noticed that there is an "install" target but not an "uninstall" target so I wrote it).
> If you are interested, I could make a merge request on BitBucket, just let me know.
> 

Hmm... for most experiments, we do not "install" midas. I should probably remove the "install" target from the Makefile.

K.O.



> Bests
> Giorgio
> 
> > Hi, Giorgio - you are asking excellent questions. I will try to answer them, but as ever, there are no 
> > easy answers.
> > 
> > In general, the top of the midas "develop" branch is "the best midas there is".
> > 
> > So for a new experiment, it is a reasonable place to start. Of course you can see
> > that there is quite a bit of commit activity going on, however, most substantial
> > changes are done on separate branches, where we try the new code, debug
> > it and test it. Only when the new code is "ready", we commit it to the "develop"
> > branch. Then, most often, we find some more last minute post-merge bugs,
> > and fix them right then and there on the head of the "develop" branch. Eventually
> > the dust settles and we have stable code that stays stable for a long time.
> > 
> > For example, right now we are waiting for the dust to settle on the change
> > of the MIDAS URL scheme, which was necessitated by needs of several experiments
> > that have more-complex-then-usual https proxy configurations. Unusual today,
> > but more common as we move forward, I think.
> > 
> > So if the head of the "develop" branch does not work for you, we encourage
> > that you file a bug report (here on this forum or on the bitbucket issue tracker).
> > 
> > While we try to sort out your problem, you can fall back to a previous version
> > of midas:
> > 
> > a) go back to one of the older "midas-YYYY-MM-X" tags
> > b) go back to one of the release candidate branches "feature/midas-YYYY-MM".
> > 
> > But if you have an already running system and you already have a working
> > instance of MIDAS, you do not have to update it to the latest version
> > unless you need some newest feature or you suffer from a bug
> > that has been fixed in a newer version.
> > 
> > In general, I find that it is fairly safe to update a working instance of MIDAS to
> > the latest code. But do keep your old working copy, if there is trouble, you can
> > always go back to something that works.
> > 
> > Now to your questions:
> > 
> > > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > > repository is better suited?
> > 
> > easy to answer. the most stable is the version you are using right now (doh!). each time
> > you upgrade, there is a risk that something will go wrong.
> > 
> > if you start from scratch, use the head of the "develop" branch (the latest and greatest),
> > if you run into trouble, report the trouble and update to a newer version with your
> > trouble fixed, or go back in time to previous tags and release candidate branches (as I described 
> > above).
> > 
> > > The master branch or the develop branch?
> > 
> > the "develop" branch.
> > 
> > > Moreover, what point in time do you think is more stable?
> > 
> > I find that it is impossible to have a stable-stable-stable version of midas
> > because the rest of the world flows forward in time. Old versions of midas
> > stop compiling because of OS and compiler changes; they stop running
> > because of OS or web browser or hardware changes. Then somebody
> > always asks for new features and new or old bugs surface constantly.
> > 
> > But we try to mark some "good" spots using git tags and release branches,
> > however the more far you go back in time, the more likely the code will
> > not even compile anymore.
> > 
> > 
> > K.O.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Hello!
> > > My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National 
> > > University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
> > > I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI 
> > > (different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user 
> > > interface.
> > > Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge 
> > > the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ... 
> > > but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was 
> > > wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
> > > So my question is:
> > > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > > repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover, 
> > > what point in time do you think is more stable?
> > > Best regards
> > > Giorgio

> - mhttpd cannot serve /etc/passwd by default as "/" is forbidden in file names added to /Custom/Path.

You do this with a simple

if (custom_path == "/")

which does work but does not cover cases such as

"/./"
"/etc/../"
"/home/meg/../../"

Good luck with finding all the weird combinations which can lead to break ins. So we are where we were before.

Still, in my opinion we should not have a path in the ODB. The custom path should be hard-wired and combined with symbolic links if necessary. The custom HTML pages under /Custom in the ODB have to be scanned for ".."s.

Stefan

First, I did not propose to give up the /Custom tree in the ODB, sorry for the misunderstanding. We still need it in order to display the menu with the custom pages at the left side navigation bar. In principle all can stay like it is, except we remove /Custom/Path and rewrite the file server to restrict it only 
to the two mentioned directories.

Second, to keep the compatibility with running experiments, we have to make the move over as simply as possible. Thomas proposed a "deprecated" mhttpd command line option. As an alternative, I propose to make a symbolic link from <exptab>/resources to where the old /Custom/Path was pointing 
to. This should work as well, and we don't have to implement a parameter in mhttpd.

Third, the /Custom/Path should really go away. We are all concerned that people can read security critical files from the whole file system. To read those files, people have to access to mhttpd, so they have to know at least the authentication credentials to pass the Apache firewall in front of mhttpd or 
whatever. This means they have access to the ODB, and then they can simply change /Custom/Path to "/" and voila - they have again access to /etc/passwd. This is why I propose symbolic links on the file system. This area is much better protected than the ODB, since people have to physically log into 
a machine to change it.

Best,
Stefan

Hi Konstantin,
thank you for the very in-depth answer. Right now I am using the latest version of MIDAS (the head of the 
develop branch) and I have not noticed any bugs or problems in the MIDAS code, except the ones that I 
myself put in the part of the code that I am developing of course.
So I will do as you suggest and continue to use the head of the develop branch.
Thank you again for taking the time to answer all my questions!

PS other than the code peculiar to our experiment, I have made a little modification to the MIDAS install 
Makefile (I noticed that there is an "install" target but not an "uninstall" target so I wrote it).
If you are interested, I could make a merge request on BitBucket, just let me know.

Bests
Giorgio

> Hi, Giorgio - you are asking excellent questions. I will try to answer them, but as ever, there are no 
> easy answers.
> 
> In general, the top of the midas "develop" branch is "the best midas there is".
> 
> So for a new experiment, it is a reasonable place to start. Of course you can see
> that there is quite a bit of commit activity going on, however, most substantial
> changes are done on separate branches, where we try the new code, debug
> it and test it. Only when the new code is "ready", we commit it to the "develop"
> branch. Then, most often, we find some more last minute post-merge bugs,
> and fix them right then and there on the head of the "develop" branch. Eventually
> the dust settles and we have stable code that stays stable for a long time.
> 
> For example, right now we are waiting for the dust to settle on the change
> of the MIDAS URL scheme, which was necessitated by needs of several experiments
> that have more-complex-then-usual https proxy configurations. Unusual today,
> but more common as we move forward, I think.
> 
> So if the head of the "develop" branch does not work for you, we encourage
> that you file a bug report (here on this forum or on the bitbucket issue tracker).
> 
> While we try to sort out your problem, you can fall back to a previous version
> of midas:
> 
> a) go back to one of the older "midas-YYYY-MM-X" tags
> b) go back to one of the release candidate branches "feature/midas-YYYY-MM".
> 
> But if you have an already running system and you already have a working
> instance of MIDAS, you do not have to update it to the latest version
> unless you need some newest feature or you suffer from a bug
> that has been fixed in a newer version.
> 
> In general, I find that it is fairly safe to update a working instance of MIDAS to
> the latest code. But do keep your old working copy, if there is trouble, you can
> always go back to something that works.
> 
> Now to your questions:
> 
> > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > repository is better suited?
> 
> easy to answer. the most stable is the version you are using right now (doh!). each time
> you upgrade, there is a risk that something will go wrong.
> 
> if you start from scratch, use the head of the "develop" branch (the latest and greatest),
> if you run into trouble, report the trouble and update to a newer version with your
> trouble fixed, or go back in time to previous tags and release candidate branches (as I described 
> above).
> 
> > The master branch or the develop branch?
> 
> the "develop" branch.
> 
> > Moreover, what point in time do you think is more stable?
> 
> I find that it is impossible to have a stable-stable-stable version of midas
> because the rest of the world flows forward in time. Old versions of midas
> stop compiling because of OS and compiler changes; they stop running
> because of OS or web browser or hardware changes. Then somebody
> always asks for new features and new or old bugs surface constantly.
> 
> But we try to mark some "good" spots using git tags and release branches,
> however the more far you go back in time, the more likely the code will
> not even compile anymore.
> 
> 
> K.O.
> 
> 
> 
> > Hello!
> > My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National 
> > University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
> > I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI 
> > (different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user 
> > interface.
> > Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge 
> > the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ... 
> > but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was 
> > wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
> > So my question is:
> > For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> > repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover, 
> > what point in time do you think is more stable?
> > Best regards
> > Giorgio

Hi, Giorgio - you are asking excellent questions. I will try to answer them, but as ever, there are no 
easy answers.

In general, the top of the midas "develop" branch is "the best midas there is".

So for a new experiment, it is a reasonable place to start. Of course you can see
that there is quite a bit of commit activity going on, however, most substantial
changes are done on separate branches, where we try the new code, debug
it and test it. Only when the new code is "ready", we commit it to the "develop"
branch. Then, most often, we find some more last minute post-merge bugs,
and fix them right then and there on the head of the "develop" branch. Eventually
the dust settles and we have stable code that stays stable for a long time.

For example, right now we are waiting for the dust to settle on the change
of the MIDAS URL scheme, which was necessitated by needs of several experiments
that have more-complex-then-usual https proxy configurations. Unusual today,
but more common as we move forward, I think.

So if the head of the "develop" branch does not work for you, we encourage
that you file a bug report (here on this forum or on the bitbucket issue tracker).

While we try to sort out your problem, you can fall back to a previous version
of midas:

a) go back to one of the older "midas-YYYY-MM-X" tags
b) go back to one of the release candidate branches "feature/midas-YYYY-MM".

But if you have an already running system and you already have a working
instance of MIDAS, you do not have to update it to the latest version
unless you need some newest feature or you suffer from a bug
that has been fixed in a newer version.

In general, I find that it is fairly safe to update a working instance of MIDAS to
the latest code. But do keep your old working copy, if there is trouble, you can
always go back to something that works.

Now to your questions:

> For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> repository is better suited?

easy to answer. the most stable is the version you are using right now (doh!). each time
you upgrade, there is a risk that something will go wrong.

if you start from scratch, use the head of the "develop" branch (the latest and greatest),
if you run into trouble, report the trouble and update to a newer version with your
trouble fixed, or go back in time to previous tags and release candidate branches (as I described 
above).

> The master branch or the develop branch?

the "develop" branch.

> Moreover, what point in time do you think is more stable?

I find that it is impossible to have a stable-stable-stable version of midas
because the rest of the world flows forward in time. Old versions of midas
stop compiling because of OS and compiler changes; they stop running
because of OS or web browser or hardware changes. Then somebody
always asks for new features and new or old bugs surface constantly.

But we try to mark some "good" spots using git tags and release branches,
however the more far you go back in time, the more likely the code will
not even compile anymore.


K.O.



> Hello!
> My name is Giorgio Pintaudi and I am a Ph.D. student at Yokohama National 
> University (Japan). I also happen to be a T2K collaborator.
> I am currently developing the DAQ software for a T2K near detector called WAGASCI 
> (different from ND280) and we recently decided to adopt MIDAS as a user 
> interface.
> Now I am using the "develop" branch of the MIDAS BitBucket repository: I merge 
> the remote repository every now and then with my local copy and that is fine ... 
> but on the 25th of April our experiment is officially starting and I was 
> wondering which version of MIDAS should I use for "production".
> So my question is:
> For a running experiment that needs software stability what branch of the MIDAS 
> repository is better suited? The master branch or the develop branch? Moreover, 
> what point in time do you think is more stable?
> Best regards
> Giorgio

Hi, guys, as I was exploring the code and the commit history on Thursday (git rules!) and
as I worked on getting the old custom files to work with Suzannah on Friday, I think
I know how I want this code to work. I think there is no need to break with the old
way of doing things and force every experiment to move things around if they want
to use the latest midas.

I will write more about this, but in the nutshell, I am happy with the current code:
- the old custom pages work (filename is taken from ODB, with /Custom/Path prepended if it exists; this is what we had for a very long time)
- the serving of new custom pages also works - via Stefan's code in interprete() where /Custom/File is added to the URL
  and if the file exists, we serve it. The only problem in that code was the missing check for absent or empty ODB /Custom/Path.
- the serving of new custom pages through the normal resource path (show_resource()) also works now,
   this serves files from $MIDASSYS/resource, from ODB /Experiment/Resource and a few other locations. (this code was there
   for a long time, but disabled because for a number of reasons, things like http://localhost:8080/Status.html did not work right,
   and after fixing a few buglets, they do now).

The serving of /etc/passwd I killed by forbidding "/" (the directory separator) in resource file names. I think this is safer
for enforcing a file jail compared to checking for "..".

I think the current code fixes all the reported problems (in conjunction with the change of the URL scheme) -
- /Custom/Path set to "" now works and provides the old way of doing custom pages
- /Custom/Path set to a directory name works and all Thomas's experiments should be good. the old custom files way *also* works, as long as the filenames in ODB are adjusted.
- URL /root and /System no longer try to serve system directories, plus /Custom/Path set to "/" is explicitly forbidden.
- mhttpd cannot serve /etc/passwd by default as "/" is forbidden in file names added to /Custom/Path. (I discount the case where mhttpd is running in /etc or /Custom/Path is set to /etc or symlinked to /etc)

But not all is good. The change of custom page URL scheme from /CS/... to top level or ?cmd=custom&page=...
cannot be swept under the rug - the user will have to make changes to their custom pages to adjust for it,
I see no way to avoid that. The current code catches and redirects/serves/helps with some of that,
i.e. pages loading custom files like "bnmr.css" still work even though bnmr.css is no longer under /CS/bnmr.css).

Again, apologies that things are moving faster than I can write them up. I am trying.


K.O.


> I see two separate issues here. 
> 
> One is restricting the custom pages to ONE directory such as 
> <exptab>/resources -> /home/users/exp/resources
> and its subdirectories which seems like a good solution for all the
> reasons you've mentioned. 
> 
> The other issue is the use of the "Path" key in /Custom, which is used to differentiate
> between the "new" way (all resources served from the Path directory) 
> and the original way where all the custom keys are specified with their full directories.
> 
> Recent versions of Midas had broken the original behaviour by insisting on the presence of the
> "Path" key.  Konstantin fixed this by allowing the "Path" key to take the value "".  It is true
> that some experiments currently may be serving resources from more than one directory tree, but changing
> to storage of all custom pages in one directory (and its subdirectories) does not necessarily mean that
> the original way of serving resources must be made obsolete.
>  
> I actually like the original way of specifying the custom keys for the pages and resources under /Custom, which
> is presently selected  without the /Custom/Path key present at all (older versions) or with the
> /Custom/Path key set to "" (latest versions). I like it for debugging, and I like to be able to see 
> at a glance what resource files are in use from /Custom. 
> 
> I have a suggestion:
> 
> The resources could still be served from the /Custom directory if desired, except now mhttpd will ALWAYS add the 
> fixed path in front of the given paths in /Custom. This would mean a fixed path and a minimal disruption to older pages 
> (the <script> and <link> statements in the HTML code to include the resources would not need to be changed).
> The "/Path" key is no longer be useful, since the resource path is now fixed. Instead a key e.g. "FlagRS"  could 
> be used to select the desired behaviour,  with the default being the "new" (no key present).
> 
> For example, the full directory paths in /custom
> ScanParams&                     /home/users/online/custom/scan/scan_select_popup.html
> mpet.css!                       /home/users/online/custom/rs/mpet.css
> scanvoltages!                   /home/users/online/custom/scan/scan_voltages.js
> 
> would become subdirectory path(s)
> ScanParams&                     custom/scan/scan_select_popup.html
> mpet.css!                       custom/rs/mpet.css
> scanvoltages!                   custom/scan/scan_voltages.js
> FlagRS                          y
> 
> The pages would be served from /home/users/exp/resources/custom/...
> 
> Suzannah
> 
>  
> > > Hi Stefan and Konstantin,
> > > 
> > > I think that this proposal sounds fairly reasonable.  I agree that we might as well move to a secure final solution at this point.  
> > > 
> > > One comment: since this change would break almost every experiment I have worked on for the last 4 years, it would be nice to add a command-line option to mhttpd that preserves the old /Custom/Path behavior.  This would allow experiments a transition 
> > > period, so that they didn't immediately need to fix their setup.  The command-line option could be clearly marked as obsolete behaviour and could be removed within a year.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Thomas
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Parsing all URL in mhttpd to prevent /etc/passwd etc. to be returned is tricky, because people can use escape sequences etc. Therefore I think it is much better to restrict file access 
> > > > on the file system level when opening a file. The only escape there one could have is "..", which can be tested easily. 
> > > > 
> > > > Therefore, I propose to restrict file access to two well-defined directories, which is one system directory and one user directory. The system directory should be defined via 
> > > > $MIDASSYS/resources, and the user directory should be the experiment directory (as defined in exptab) followed by "resources". So if MIDASSYS equals to /usr/local/midas and the 
> > > > experiment directory equals to /home/users/exp for example, we would only have these two directories (and of course the subdirectories within these) served by mhttpd:
> > > > 
> > > > $MIDASSYS/resource -> /usr/local/midas/resources
> > > > <exptab>/resources -> /home/users/exp/resources
> > > > 
> > > > These directories should be hard-wired into mhttpd, and not go through and ODB entry, since otherwise one could manipulate the ODB entries (knowingly or unknowingly) and open a 
> > > > back-door. 
> > > > 
> > > > If users need a more complex structure, they can put soft links into these directories.
> > > > 
> > > > The code which opens a resource file should then first evaluate $MIDASSYS, then add "/resources/", then add the requested file name, make sure that there is no ".." in the file name, 
> > > > then open the file. If not existing, do the same for the <exptab>/resources/ directory.
> > > > 
> > > > This change will break most experiments, and forces people to move their custom pages to different directories, but I think it's the only clean solution and we just have to bite the 
> > > > bullet.
> > > > 
> > > > Comments are welcome.
> > > > 
> > > > Stefan

I see two separate issues here. 

One is restricting the custom pages to ONE directory such as 
<exptab>/resources -> /home/users/exp/resources
and its subdirectories which seems like a good solution for all the
reasons you've mentioned. 

The other issue is the use of the "Path" key in /Custom, which is used to differentiate
between the "new" way (all resources served from the Path directory) 
and the original way where all the custom keys are specified with their full directories.

Recent versions of Midas had broken the original behaviour by insisting on the presence of the
"Path" key.  Konstantin fixed this by allowing the "Path" key to take the value "".  It is true
that some experiments currently may be serving resources from more than one directory tree, but changing
to storage of all custom pages in one directory (and its subdirectories) does not necessarily mean that
the original way of serving resources must be made obsolete.
 
I actually like the original way of specifying the custom keys for the pages and resources under /Custom, which
is presently selected  without the /Custom/Path key present at all (older versions) or with the
/Custom/Path key set to "" (latest versions). I like it for debugging, and I like to be able to see 
at a glance what resource files are in use from /Custom. 

I have a suggestion:

The resources could still be served from the /Custom directory if desired, except now mhttpd will ALWAYS add the 
fixed path in front of the given paths in /Custom. This would mean a fixed path and a minimal disruption to older pages 
(the <script> and <link> statements in the HTML code to include the resources would not need to be changed).
The "/Path" key is no longer be useful, since the resource path is now fixed. Instead a key e.g. "FlagRS"  could 
be used to select the desired behaviour,  with the default being the "new" (no key present).

For example, the full directory paths in /custom
ScanParams&                     /home/users/online/custom/scan/scan_select_popup.html
mpet.css!                       /home/users/online/custom/rs/mpet.css
scanvoltages!                   /home/users/online/custom/scan/scan_voltages.js

would become subdirectory path(s)
ScanParams&                     custom/scan/scan_select_popup.html
mpet.css!                       custom/rs/mpet.css
scanvoltages!                   custom/scan/scan_voltages.js
FlagRS                          y

The pages would be served from /home/users/exp/resources/custom/...

Suzannah

 
> > Hi Stefan and Konstantin,
> > 
> > I think that this proposal sounds fairly reasonable.  I agree that we might as well move to a secure final solution at this point.  
> > 
> > One comment: since this change would break almost every experiment I have worked on for the last 4 years, it would be nice to add a command-line option to mhttpd that preserves the old /Custom/Path behavior.  This would allow experiments a transition 
> > period, so that they didn't immediately need to fix their setup.  The command-line option could be clearly marked as obsolete behaviour and could be removed within a year.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Thomas
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Parsing all URL in mhttpd to prevent /etc/passwd etc. to be returned is tricky, because people can use escape sequences etc. Therefore I think it is much better to restrict file access 
> > > on the file system level when opening a file. The only escape there one could have is "..", which can be tested easily. 
> > > 
> > > Therefore, I propose to restrict file access to two well-defined directories, which is one system directory and one user directory. The system directory should be defined via 
> > > $MIDASSYS/resources, and the user directory should be the experiment directory (as defined in exptab) followed by "resources". So if MIDASSYS equals to /usr/local/midas and the 
> > > experiment directory equals to /home/users/exp for example, we would only have these two directories (and of course the subdirectories within these) served by mhttpd:
> > > 
> > > $MIDASSYS/resource -> /usr/local/midas/resources
> > > <exptab>/resources -> /home/users/exp/resources
> > > 
> > > These directories should be hard-wired into mhttpd, and not go through and ODB entry, since otherwise one could manipulate the ODB entries (knowingly or unknowingly) and open a 
> > > back-door. 
> > > 
> > > If users need a more complex structure, they can put soft links into these directories.
> > > 
> > > The code which opens a resource file should then first evaluate $MIDASSYS, then add "/resources/", then add the requested file name, make sure that there is no ".." in the file name, 
> > > then open the file. If not existing, do the same for the <exptab>/resources/ directory.
> > > 
> > > This change will break most experiments, and forces people to move their custom pages to different directories, but I think it's the only clean solution and we just have to bite the 
> > > bullet.
> > > 
> > > Comments are welcome.
> > > 
> > > Stefan