neue medienordnung plus - nmoplus@hub.freecommunication.org

changing ACL for tokenized content

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:20:27 +0100 last edited: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:08:26 +0100

I created webpage WPB http://dummy.org/page/wpb on channel B with [observer=1/0] protected content
WPB contains image ImA, that be accesible only for selected vistor
I allowed visibility for ImA for token TImA
but image ImA is not visible for token TImA
image ImA be visible for token TImA, if I upload/include image ImA after change of ACL for image ImA

Is this beahavior a bug or a feature? I anticipate, that image ImA be visible for token TImA without new upload image ImA after allowing visibility for ImA for token TImA.

#tokenized #tokenizedcontent #protectedcontent #visibility @Hubzilla Development+ @Hubzilla Support Forum+

tokenized visibility protectedcontent tokenizedcontent ACL

show all 7 comments

Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum)

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:20:33 +0100

Are you talking about Zot Access Token/Guest Access Token? If so, the resource needs to be available to Anybody authenticated + restricted to the ZAT/GAT.

neue medienordnung plus

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:38:37 +0100 last edited: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:41:48 +0100

@Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum) I talking about Hubzilla Guest Access Token. Can yo say me, how can I implement:

the resource to be available to Anybody authenticated + restricted to the ZAT/GAT

in this context:

public webpage PWP
area AOAPWP in PWP, protected with [observer=1][/observer] markup[/i]
area AOAPWP contains images, that receive permissions here

And the Hubzilla behavior of this solution is so, how abowe describe. I mean, that this behavior is a bug.

I understand not, how works this protection

resource to be available to Anybody authenticated + restricted to the ZAT/GAT.

Is your solution approach different from my solution above? Can you give me one example?

#GuestAccessToken #ZATGAT #ZATGATexample #ZotAccessToken

protection authenticated

Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum)

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:02 +0100 last edited: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:18:36 +0100

I will have to get back to you on this, but I think there is some confusion between ZAT and observer.

observer can only tell if you are logged in or not, it does not really care about who you are.

ZAT does know who you are.

In other words, it makes sense to only use one of them.

Suppose you have a public web page of type BBcode with ImageA and ImageB. ImageA is visible to everyone on the Internet, since the page is public. However, using the BBCode observer-tag, you can hide ImageB from the Internet.
Case closed.

Now, suppose you now want to hide the public page, and only allow those who have a ZAT-link to it to view it.
Then you need to create a new ZAT - e.g. OnlyYouAreWelcome, change the permission of the public page so View is only allowed for OnlyYouAreWelcome.

People with the ZAT-link can now view the protected page, if your webpages are generally visible, else you need to change this to at least "Anybody authenticated" if not "Anybody on the Internet" in your privacy settings.

The people who view the protected page are authenticated, i.e. they are an observer=1 and will be able to view both ImageA and ImageB. If you want this to be reversed, you need to switch observer from 1 to 0, i.e. you are hiding something from someone who is authenticated, which may be sensible if the text or image is of a general nature and you want to get it out of the way.

neue medienordnung plus

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:57:26 +0100

@Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum)
With this

However, using the BBCode observer-tag, you can hide ImageB from the Internet.

solution is ImageB still accessible/ visible for not authenticated visitor, which visit the channel cloud/ or photos. I need one solution for robust protect/ hide of ressources for all not authenticated visitor.

Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum)

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:11:25 +0100

Right, you need two folders, one for restricted files and one for public files.

ImageB must be under a restricted folder in Files, e.g. Restricted Files, while ImageA is in a public folder in Files, e.g Public Files.

Add the ZAT for OnlyYouAreWelcome to Restricted Files.

Add the ZAT-link to ImageB to the webpage.

I may have got this wrong.

neue medienordnung plus

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:46:59 +0100

I assume, that with your solution I must all webpages, where include Restricted Objects also declare to Restricted Webpages. Otherwise see other authenticated user without access to image logo.png this message:

Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum)

Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:46:39 +0100

Well, as described just those with the ZAT-link are allowed in, but you can add other people to the Restricted Files folder. I am going to a meeting now, so good luck!