Continue writing about architecture
This commit is contained in:
parent
fb08ec81cb
commit
f84d87a47d
@ -124,6 +124,92 @@ greater detail, as well as how they interact with each other,
|
||||
their respective responsibilities,
|
||||
some of the design choices behind them and more.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{TFW Message Format}
|
||||
|
||||
All components in the Tutorial Framework use JSON%
|
||||
\footnote{JavaScript Object Notation: \href{https://www.json.org}{https://www.json.org}}
|
||||
messages to communicate with eachother.
|
||||
These messages must also comply some simple rules specific to the framework.
|
||||
Let's inspect further what a valid TFW message might look like:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lstlisting}[captionpos=b,caption={The TFW JSON message format}]
|
||||
{
|
||||
"key": ...an identifier used for addressing...,
|
||||
"data":
|
||||
{
|
||||
...
|
||||
optional JSON object carrying arbitrary data
|
||||
...
|
||||
},
|
||||
"trigger": ...optional state change action...,
|
||||
"signature": ...optional HMAC signature for authenticated messages...,
|
||||
"seq": ...sequence number that is automatically inserted by the TFW server...
|
||||
}
|
||||
\end{lstlisting}
|
||||
|
||||
All valid messages \emph{must} include a \texttt{key} field as this is used by the
|
||||
framework for addressing: event handlers and frontend components subscribe to one
|
||||
or more \texttt{key}s and only receive messages with \texttt{key}s they have
|
||||
subscribed to.
|
||||
It is possible to send a message with an empty key, however these messages will not
|
||||
be forwarded by the TFW server (but will reach it, so in case the target of a message
|
||||
is the TFW server exclusively, an empty \texttt{key} can may used).
|
||||
|
||||
The rest of the fields are optional, but most messages will carry something
|
||||
in their \texttt{data} field.
|
||||
The purpose \texttt{trigger} and \texttt{signature} fields will be detailed
|
||||
at a later point in this paper.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Networking Details}
|
||||
|
||||
The default behaviour of the TFW server is that it forwards all messages from coming from
|
||||
the frontend to the event handlers and vice versa.
|
||||
So messages coming from the WebSockets of the frontend are forwarded to event handlers
|
||||
via ZMQ and messages received through ZMQ from event handlers are forwarded to
|
||||
the frontend via WebSockets.
|
||||
|
||||
The TFW server is also capable of ``reflecting'' messages back to the side they were
|
||||
received on (to faciliate event handler to event handler for instance), or broadcast
|
||||
messages to all components.
|
||||
This is possible by embedding a whole TFW message in the \texttt{data} field of
|
||||
an outer wrapper message with a special \texttt{key} that signals to the TFW server that
|
||||
this message requires special attention.
|
||||
An example of this would be:
|
||||
\begin{lstlisting}[captionpos=b,caption={Broadcasting and mirroring TFW messages}]
|
||||
}
|
||||
"key": "broadcast", // or "mirror"
|
||||
"data":
|
||||
{
|
||||
...
|
||||
The message you want to broadcast or mirror
|
||||
(with it's own "key" and "data" fields)
|
||||
...
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
\end{lstlisting}
|
||||
Any invalid messages (not valid JSON or no \texttt{key} field present) are ignored
|
||||
by the TFW server.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Event Handlers}
|
||||
|
||||
Event handlers are processes running in the \texttt{solvable} Docker container
|
||||
that subscribe to specific message types using ZeroMQ sockets.
|
||||
As discussed earlier, using ZeroMQ allows developers to implement event handlers
|
||||
in a wide variety of programming languages.
|
||||
This is very important for the framework, as content creators often create
|
||||
challenges that are very specific to a language, for example the showcasing
|
||||
of a security vulnerability in an older version of Java.
|
||||
|
||||
These event handlers are used to write most of the code developers wish to
|
||||
integrate with the framework.
|
||||
Let's say that a tutorial asks the user to fix some piece of legacy C code.
|
||||
In this case, a challenge developer could implement an event handler that runs
|
||||
some unit tests to determine whether the user was successful in fixing
|
||||
the code or not, then advance the tutorial or invoke other event handlers
|
||||
based on this knowledge.
|
||||
An event handler such as this could be invoked by sending a message to it
|
||||
at any time when the running of the tests would be required.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Frontend}
|
||||
|
||||
This is a web application that runs in the browser of the user and uses
|
||||
@ -152,6 +238,138 @@ which tries to remedy the issues\cite{JavaScript}
|
||||
with JavaScript by being a language that transpiles to JavaScript while
|
||||
strongly encouraging things like static typing or Object Oriented Principles.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Messaging}
|
||||
\pic{figures/tfw_frontend.png}{The Current Angular Frontend of the Tutorial Framework}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Built-in Event Handlers and Frontend Components}
|
||||
|
||||
A good chunk of the framework codebase is a bunch of pre-made, built-in components
|
||||
that implement commonly required functionality for developers to use.
|
||||
These components usually involve an event handler and an Angular component which
|
||||
communicates with it to realize some functionality.
|
||||
An example would be the built-in code editor of the framework
|
||||
(visible on the left side of Figure~\ref{figures/tfw_frontend.png}).
|
||||
This code editor is essentially a Monaco editor%
|
||||
\footnote{\href{https://microsoft.github.io/monaco-editor/}
|
||||
{https://microsoft.github.io/monaco-editor/}}
|
||||
instance integrated into Angular and upgraded with the capability to
|
||||
exchanges messages with an event handler to save, read and edit files
|
||||
that reside in the writeable file system of the \texttt{solvable}
|
||||
Docker container.
|
||||
|
||||
All of the built-ins come with full API documentation explaining what they do
|
||||
on receiving specific messages, and what messages they emit on different events.
|
||||
This greatly expands the capabilities of the framework, since it allows
|
||||
developers to do things including, but not limited to:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item making the code editor automatically appear in sections
|
||||
of the tutorial where the user needs to use it
|
||||
\item inject commands into the user's terminal
|
||||
\item hook into messages emitted from components to detect events, such as
|
||||
to detect if the user has clicked a button or executed a command
|
||||
in the terminal
|
||||
\item monitor the logs (stdout or stderr) of a given process
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
Every pre-made component is designed with the mindset to allow flexible
|
||||
and creative usage by developers, with the possibility of future extensions.
|
||||
Often when developers require certain new features, they open an issue on
|
||||
the git repository of the framework for me to review and possibly implement
|
||||
later.
|
||||
|
||||
One example would be when a developer wanted to automatically advance the tutorial
|
||||
when the user has entered a specific string into a file.
|
||||
This one didn't even require a new feature: I recommended him to implement an event
|
||||
handler listening to the messages of the built-in file editor, filter the messages
|
||||
which contain file content that is going to be written to disk, and simply
|
||||
search these messages for the given string.
|
||||
|
||||
The exact capabilities of these built-in components will be explained in greater
|
||||
detail in a later chapter.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{TFW Finite State Machine}
|
||||
\subsection{Solution Checking}\label{solutioncheck}
|
||||
|
||||
An important requirement we have specified during~\ref{requirements} was that
|
||||
the framework must be capable of tracking user progress.
|
||||
TFW allows developers to define a \emph{finite state machine}
|
||||
which is capable of describing the desired ``story'' of a tutorial.
|
||||
The states of the machine could be certain points in time during the completion of the
|
||||
tutorial envisioned and transitions could be events that influence the
|
||||
state, such as the editing of files, execution of commands and so on.
|
||||
|
||||
Take the fixing of a SQL Injection%
|
||||
\footnote{\href{https://www.owasp.org/index.php/SQL_Injection}
|
||||
{https://www.owasp.org/index.php/SQL\_Injection}}
|
||||
vulnerability as an example.
|
||||
Let's assume, that the source code is vulnerable to a SQL injection attack
|
||||
because it tries to compose a query with string concatenation instead of
|
||||
using a parameterized query provided by the database library.
|
||||
A challenge developer could implement an FSM in the framework that looks like this:
|
||||
|
||||
\pic[width=.6\textwidth]{figures/tfw_fsm.png}{An Example for a Finite State Machine in TFW}
|
||||
|
||||
In case the source file has been edited, the unit test cases designed to detect
|
||||
whether the code is vulnerable or not are invoked.
|
||||
Depending on the results three cases are possible:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{description}
|
||||
\item[All test cases have succeeded:] If all the tests succeeded then the user has managed
|
||||
to fix the code properly and we can display a congratulating message accordingly.
|
||||
\item[All test cases have failed:] In this case the solution is incorrect
|
||||
and we can offer some hints.
|
||||
\item[Some test cases have succeeded:] It is possible that the based on the test cases
|
||||
that have succeeded and failed we can determine that the user tried to blacklist
|
||||
certain SQL keywords. This is a common, but incorrect solution of fixing a SQL
|
||||
injection vulnerability. Now we can explain to users why their solution is wrong,
|
||||
and give them helpful tips.
|
||||
\end{description}
|
||||
|
||||
This example shows how content creators can create tutorials that could behave
|
||||
in many different ways based on what the user does.
|
||||
In high quality challenges developers can implement several ``paths'' to
|
||||
a successful completion.
|
||||
This is a very engaging feature that offers an immersive learning experience for
|
||||
users, which many solutions for distance education lack so often.
|
||||
|
||||
Developers can use a YAML file or write Python code to implement finite
|
||||
state machines.
|
||||
Architecturally a built-in event handler called \texttt{FSMManagingEventHandler}
|
||||
is capable of managing the FSM defined by clients.
|
||||
The responsibilities of said event handler include:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item Attempting to step the state machine (one can write preconditions that are
|
||||
required to succeed for the transition to take place)
|
||||
\item Broadcasting FMS update messages on events involving the state machine,
|
||||
such as successful transitions
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
The \texttt{trigger} field of a message can be used to step the framework FSM
|
||||
if all preconditions are met.
|
||||
The way this works is if the TFW server encounters a message with a
|
||||
\texttt{trigger} defined, it notifies the event handler managing
|
||||
the state machine.
|
||||
|
||||
Since messages can come from unauthenticated sources, it is possible to
|
||||
enforce the authentication of privileged messages, such as messages containing a \texttt{trigger}.
|
||||
The framework allows trusted code to access a cryptographic key on the file system, which
|
||||
can be used to digitally sign messages (this is what the \texttt{signature} message
|
||||
field is designed for).
|
||||
In this case the TFW server will only forward privileged messages that
|
||||
have a valid signature.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Solution checking}
|
||||
|
||||
Traditionally most challenges on the Avatao platform implement a Docker image called
|
||||
\texttt{controller}, which is responsible for detecting the successful
|
||||
solution of a challenge.
|
||||
When using the Tutorial Framework a pre-implemented \texttt{controller}
|
||||
image is available, which listens to messages emitted by the
|
||||
framework FSM, and detects if the final state defined by developers is reached.
|
||||
This means that if content creators implement a proper FSM, the solution checking
|
||||
does not require any more effort from their part and will work automatically.
|
||||
|
||||
It is also worth to note that the authentication of privileged messages
|
||||
makes the Tutorial Framework suitable for implementing
|
||||
traditional hacking challenges, such as exercises developed for CTF%
|
||||
\footnote{A ``capture the flag'' game is a competition designed for professionals
|
||||
--- or just people interested in the field --- to sharpen their skills in IT security.
|
||||
Avatao often organises similar events.}
|
||||
events.
|
||||
|
BIN
figures/tfw_frontend.png
Normal file
BIN
figures/tfw_frontend.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
After Width: | Height: | Size: 326 KiB |
BIN
figures/tfw_fsm.png
Normal file
BIN
figures/tfw_fsm.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
After Width: | Height: | Size: 73 KiB |
@ -27,5 +27,6 @@
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includegraphics[#1]{#2}
|
||||
\caption{#3}
|
||||
\label{#2}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -30,8 +30,6 @@
|
||||
\pagestyle{fancy}
|
||||
\fancyfoot[C]{\thepage}
|
||||
|
||||
\newcommand{\crule}{\rule{\textwidth}{1px}\\\\}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{document}
|
||||
\include{content/titlepage}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -39,7 +37,7 @@
|
||||
\tableofcontents
|
||||
\microtypesetup{protrusion=true}
|
||||
\thispagestyle{empty}
|
||||
\cleardoublepage
|
||||
\cleardoublepage{}
|
||||
|
||||
\include{content/declaration}
|
||||
\include{content/abstract}
|
||||
@ -47,7 +45,7 @@
|
||||
\include{content/architecture}
|
||||
|
||||
\listoffigures
|
||||
\lstlistoflistings
|
||||
\lstlistoflistings{}
|
||||
|
||||
\renewcommand\bibname{References}
|
||||
\printbibliography{}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user