biscuit-rust VS gitcloud

> We have a post on this coming soon! The short version is that Polar is a logic language based on Prolog/Datalog/miniKanren. And logic languages are a particularly good fit for representing the branching conditional logic you often see in authorization configurations.

Ha, I've been playing around with Biscuits (https://www.biscuitsec.org/) and was writing up a blog post on using them in a git forge. When I saw the Polar data units described as "facts" and read your end to end example (https://www.osohq.com/docs/tutorials/end-to-end-example) I thought "Oh this looks very similar". I will say - I do like how Polar seems to type stuff and provide some concepts that Biscuits force you to build out on your own, that's pretty neat.

What is the proof of identity in Polar? Is it something like a token in Biscuits? I'm curious if you can do things like add caveats to reduce what the token is capable of as it gets handed off to different systems. I consider that one of the "killer use cases" of biscuits.

I ported biscuit-java to Kotlin for an internal project. In the course of doing so, I went from a naive superfan to a somewhat grizzled advocate. Here's my high level summary:

Why Biscuit instead of JWTs?

tl;dr, Biscuit (and Macaroons) can attenuate, JWTs can't.

Read: https://fly.io/blog/api-tokens-a-tedious-survey/

What does this mean? Let's say you're given a token to access System A and B whenever and however you want. You can create a new token from your token (attenuate) that only gives access to System A for the next 5 minutes.

Basically: attenuation gives a capability system.

Why Biscuit instead of Macaroons

tl;dr Biscuits are easier to understand (and implement) than Macaroons.

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZFv62qz8R

Macaroons are clunky and hard to work with in practice. That's probably not a feature you want in your choice of token technology.

Biscuits contain simple facts and clear policies written in Datalog.

Why NOT Biscuits

Immaturity.

- AFAIK there is no compliance suite for all the Biscuit libraries linked https://www.biscuitsec.org/; and as such, unsurprisingly, there are corner case incompatibilities, especially in the authorization language parsers and Datalog expressions/operators.

- The Datalog runtime limits are user-defined. What is the maximum number of facts, application iterations, or even timeouts? That's up to you.

- Biscuit v2 (v3-4 in the proto) is the Official Latest Version. Some of the libraries support the older versions to varying degrees.. and the way that backwards compatibility is implemented gave me pause.

- Whole sections of the specification are `TODO`.

- The Datalog data types are bounded by the underlying protobuf definitions; and the libraries use the language native data types. There are casts and undefined behaviour at the extremes.

- Many of the libraries do little things like calling the equivalent of `Time.now()` internally. IMHO this sort thing should be stateless.

- There's heaps of tests, which is great! But, I didn't see any fuzz or property tests, which is less great.

Summary

Biscuits neatly package several simple and solid technologies: datalog, ed25519, protobufs. Once the ecosystem is mature, it'll be incredible.

> The point of JWT vs opaque tokens is that you can just inspect the token itself to derive permissions without hitting any sessions in DB, right?

As I understand it, de-centralized verification isn't a necessary characteristic of a JWT. There are token constructions that make that a priority, however[0].

[0]: https://www.biscuitsec.org/

a C compatible library thanks to cargo-c

I like the Datalog-based policy language used in Biscuits.

https://www.biscuitsec.org/

Has anyone tried https://www.biscuitsec.org/ ?

I haven't seen it much discussed, and seems to solve a lot of issues from JWT

> However: you seem to target developers. Why do you force me to leave my IDE and use your "rules editor"? Can I not write all those things in my IDE, with all the support it brings, and integrate this into my CICD flow? (yes, there is the .polar file, but why force me to jump through hoops?)

Hey valenterry! Oso CTO here. You can absolutely write policies locally and integrate this with CI/CD. We have vscode extension for the former, and CI tools for running local dev environments and CI for running this locally or in CI or whatever.

The UI is mostly nice for getting started development experience, e.g. it integrates directly with Oso Cloud without needing to configure credentials.

> Then, why did you create a new DSL and not a merely a (de-)serializable datastructure (which will indeed look like a dsl)? One, that is powerful enough to represent the capabilities you need. Then, I could in fact use any language (library) of my choice and create the rules from this language, which just has to create the datastructure.

We have a post on this coming soon! The short version is that Polar is a logic language based on Prolog/Datalog/miniKanren. And logic languages are a particularly good fit for representing the branching conditional logic you often see in authorization configurations.

And it made it easier for us to do custom work like add inline policy tests.

> Apart from that, I really like the `yes, if` idea! Would be nice to hear a bit more about that (unfortunately, the article pretty much ends there). Such as: how to deal with actions that change things and can (or must) potentially be run before the authorization is completed and such.

We typically recommend authorizing in two places: at the start of a request, and then when fetching data.

e.g. in our demo app, authorizing "can a user create an issue" involves authorizing a "create_issue" action against the repository itself: https://github.com/osohq/gitcloud/blob/sam/list-filtering/se...

Whereas anything listing issues calls the `list_local` method and does the `yes, if` style approach.