You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@falcon.apache.org by Balu Vellanki <bv...@hortonworks.com> on 2015/09/14 23:42:38 UTC
[Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of feed
or process entity
Hi Team,
Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support for permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and the falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users" permission="*"/>, then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this entity. I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please comment if you disagree.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
Thanks
Balu Velalnki
Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of
feed or process entity
Posted by Venkat Ranganathan <vr...@hortonworks.com>.
We discussed this earlier as part of one of our regression QE issues failing when we were doing the proxy user. Yes, agreed that we need this to be fixed by fixing ACL handling in general. I would like to target it for post 0.8, given that we have a flurry of features for 0.8
Thanks
Venkat
On 9/15/15, 8:54 AM, "Srikanth Sundarrajan" <sr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>IMHO, Only owner should be allowed to change the ownership on the entity, not a member of the group. Removing the ACL from the entity would be the right way forward to solve for this. ACLs in the entity is too messy.
>
>Regards
>Srikanth Sundarrajan
>
>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of feed or process entity
>> From: bvellanki@hortonworks.com
>> To: dev@falcon.apache.org
>> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:52:47 +0000
>>
>> Based on discussion - we all seem to agree that
>> - Only superuser should change ownership
>> - Falcon team should implement the functionality for permissions part of
>> ACL.
>>
>> Balu
>>
>> On 9/14/15, 10:45 PM, "Peeyush Bishnoi" <bp...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>> >Balu,
>> >Thanks for initiating the discussion.
>> >I am of the opinion here is that ACL of feed/process entity should work
>> >similarly to the UNIX-like system.
>> >If user1 has not set the permission for group writable , then user2
>> >should not be allowed to updateACL of feed or process entity. If user1
>> >has set the permission for group writable purposefully, then user2 should
>> >alsoupdate as per the agreement between user1 and user2 (collaborative
>> >work) as they belong to same group.
>> >
>> >Thanks,---Peeyush
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:23 AM, Sandeep Samudrala
>> ><sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree with above point to handle submission time. But again an entity
>> >can
>> >be submitted and scheduled with different users, in which case the user
>> >with which schedule is ran will be used. We might have to handle even
>> >scheduling part. I think rather than handling ACL at various levels, the
>> >whole ACL can be improved as part of FALCON-1367
>> ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1367>.
>> >
>> >On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM, pavan kumar Kolamuri <
>> >pavan.kolamuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Even i agree that user2 shouldn't update/delete/suspend the entity, but
>> >>we
>> >> should be consistent across all API's for the same. As of now submit is
>> >> allowed if user belongs to the same group of ACL owner group right ?
>> >>Should
>> >> we also change this behaviour to make sure only ACL owner should be
>> >>allowed
>> >> to submit ?
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Pallavi Rao <pa...@inmobi.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Agree that "user2" shouldn't be allowed to just update the entity and
>> >> > change the ownership. All the more reason to have a separate Auth API,
>> >> > rather than embed the ACL in the entity itself. Such issues can be
>> >> handled
>> >> > in a much cleaner way.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Pallavi
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Balu Vellanki <
>> >> bvellanki@hortonworks.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi Team,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support
>> >>for
>> >> > > permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who
>> >> > > belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and
>> >>the
>> >> > > falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users"
>> >>permission="*"/>,
>> >> > > then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this
>> >> > entity.
>> >> > > I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is
>> >> > > superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please
>> >>comment if
>> >> > you
>> >> > > disagree.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks
>> >> > > Balu Velalnki
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > _____________________________________________________________
>> >> > The information contained in this communication is intended solely for
>> >> the
>> >> > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
>> >> > authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
>> >> privileged
>> >> > information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
>> >> notified
>> >> > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
>> >> reliance
>> >> > on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
>> >> > unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
>> >>notify
>> >> > us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from
>> >>your
>> >> > system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
>> >> transmission
>> >> > of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay
>> >>in
>> >> its
>> >> > receipt.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards
>> >> Pavan Kumar Kolamuri
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
RE: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of
feed or process entity
Posted by Srikanth Sundarrajan <sr...@hotmail.com>.
IMHO, Only owner should be allowed to change the ownership on the entity, not a member of the group. Removing the ACL from the entity would be the right way forward to solve for this. ACLs in the entity is too messy.
Regards
Srikanth Sundarrajan
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of feed or process entity
> From: bvellanki@hortonworks.com
> To: dev@falcon.apache.org
> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:52:47 +0000
>
> Based on discussion - we all seem to agree that
> - Only superuser should change ownership
> - Falcon team should implement the functionality for permissions part of
> ACL.
>
> Balu
>
> On 9/14/15, 10:45 PM, "Peeyush Bishnoi" <bp...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> >Balu,
> >Thanks for initiating the discussion.
> >I am of the opinion here is that ACL of feed/process entity should work
> >similarly to the UNIX-like system.
> >If user1 has not set the permission for group writable , then user2
> >should not be allowed to updateACL of feed or process entity. If user1
> >has set the permission for group writable purposefully, then user2 should
> >alsoupdate as per the agreement between user1 and user2 (collaborative
> >work) as they belong to same group.
> >
> >Thanks,---Peeyush
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:23 AM, Sandeep Samudrala
> ><sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree with above point to handle submission time. But again an entity
> >can
> >be submitted and scheduled with different users, in which case the user
> >with which schedule is ran will be used. We might have to handle even
> >scheduling part. I think rather than handling ACL at various levels, the
> >whole ACL can be improved as part of FALCON-1367
> ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1367>.
> >
> >On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM, pavan kumar Kolamuri <
> >pavan.kolamuri@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Even i agree that user2 shouldn't update/delete/suspend the entity, but
> >>we
> >> should be consistent across all API's for the same. As of now submit is
> >> allowed if user belongs to the same group of ACL owner group right ?
> >>Should
> >> we also change this behaviour to make sure only ACL owner should be
> >>allowed
> >> to submit ?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Pallavi Rao <pa...@inmobi.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Agree that "user2" shouldn't be allowed to just update the entity and
> >> > change the ownership. All the more reason to have a separate Auth API,
> >> > rather than embed the ACL in the entity itself. Such issues can be
> >> handled
> >> > in a much cleaner way.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Pallavi
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Balu Vellanki <
> >> bvellanki@hortonworks.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Team,
> >> > >
> >> > > Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support
> >>for
> >> > > permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who
> >> > > belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
> >> > >
> >> > > If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and
> >>the
> >> > > falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users"
> >>permission="*"/>,
> >> > > then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this
> >> > entity.
> >> > > I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is
> >> > > superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please
> >>comment if
> >> > you
> >> > > disagree.
> >> > >
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > Balu Velalnki
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > _____________________________________________________________
> >> > The information contained in this communication is intended solely for
> >> the
> >> > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> >> > authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
> >> privileged
> >> > information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
> >> notified
> >> > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
> >> reliance
> >> > on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
> >> > unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
> >>notify
> >> > us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from
> >>your
> >> > system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
> >> transmission
> >> > of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay
> >>in
> >> its
> >> > receipt.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards
> >> Pavan Kumar Kolamuri
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of
feed or process entity
Posted by Balu Vellanki <bv...@hortonworks.com>.
Based on discussion - we all seem to agree that
- Only superuser should change ownership
- Falcon team should implement the functionality for permissions part of
ACL.
Balu
On 9/14/15, 10:45 PM, "Peeyush Bishnoi" <bp...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>Balu,
>Thanks for initiating the discussion.
>I am of the opinion here is that ACL of feed/process entity should work
>similarly to the UNIX-like system.
>If user1 has not set the permission for group writable , then user2
>should not be allowed to updateACL of feed or process entity. If user1
>has set the permission for group writable purposefully, then user2 should
>alsoupdate as per the agreement between user1 and user2 (collaborative
>work) as they belong to same group.
>
>Thanks,---Peeyush
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:23 AM, Sandeep Samudrala
><sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with above point to handle submission time. But again an entity
>can
>be submitted and scheduled with different users, in which case the user
>with which schedule is ran will be used. We might have to handle even
>scheduling part. I think rather than handling ACL at various levels, the
>whole ACL can be improved as part of FALCON-1367
><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1367>.
>
>On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM, pavan kumar Kolamuri <
>pavan.kolamuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Even i agree that user2 shouldn't update/delete/suspend the entity, but
>>we
>> should be consistent across all API's for the same. As of now submit is
>> allowed if user belongs to the same group of ACL owner group right ?
>>Should
>> we also change this behaviour to make sure only ACL owner should be
>>allowed
>> to submit ?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Pallavi Rao <pa...@inmobi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Agree that "user2" shouldn't be allowed to just update the entity and
>> > change the ownership. All the more reason to have a separate Auth API,
>> > rather than embed the ACL in the entity itself. Such issues can be
>> handled
>> > in a much cleaner way.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Pallavi
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Balu Vellanki <
>> bvellanki@hortonworks.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Team,
>> > >
>> > > Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support
>>for
>> > > permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who
>> > > belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
>> > >
>> > > If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and
>>the
>> > > falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users"
>>permission="*"/>,
>> > > then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this
>> > entity.
>> > > I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is
>> > > superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please
>>comment if
>> > you
>> > > disagree.
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > > Balu Velalnki
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > _____________________________________________________________
>> > The information contained in this communication is intended solely for
>> the
>> > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
>> > authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
>> privileged
>> > information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
>> notified
>> > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
>> reliance
>> > on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
>> > unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
>>notify
>> > us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from
>>your
>> > system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
>> transmission
>> > of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay
>>in
>> its
>> > receipt.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Pavan Kumar Kolamuri
>>
>
>
>
Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of
feed or process entity
Posted by Peeyush Bishnoi <bp...@yahoo.co.in>.
Balu,
Thanks for initiating the discussion.
I am of the opinion here is that ACL of feed/process entity should work similarly to the UNIX-like system.
If user1 has not set the permission for group writable , then user2 should not be allowed to updateACL of feed or process entity. If user1 has set the permission for group writable purposefully, then user2 should alsoupdate as per the agreement between user1 and user2 (collaborative work) as they belong to same group.
Thanks,---Peeyush
On Tuesday, 15 September 2015 10:23 AM, Sandeep Samudrala <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with above point to handle submission time. But again an entity can
be submitted and scheduled with different users, in which case the user
with which schedule is ran will be used. We might have to handle even
scheduling part. I think rather than handling ACL at various levels, the
whole ACL can be improved as part of FALCON-1367
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1367>.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM, pavan kumar Kolamuri <
pavan.kolamuri@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even i agree that user2 shouldn't update/delete/suspend the entity, but we
> should be consistent across all API's for the same. As of now submit is
> allowed if user belongs to the same group of ACL owner group right ? Should
> we also change this behaviour to make sure only ACL owner should be allowed
> to submit ?
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Pallavi Rao <pa...@inmobi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Agree that "user2" shouldn't be allowed to just update the entity and
> > change the ownership. All the more reason to have a separate Auth API,
> > rather than embed the ACL in the entity itself. Such issues can be
> handled
> > in a much cleaner way.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pallavi
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Balu Vellanki <
> bvellanki@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Team,
> > >
> > > Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support for
> > > permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who
> > > belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
> > >
> > > If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and the
> > > falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users" permission="*"/>,
> > > then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this
> > entity.
> > > I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is
> > > superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please comment if
> > you
> > > disagree.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Balu Velalnki
> > >
> >
> > --
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > The information contained in this communication is intended solely for
> the
> > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> > authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
> privileged
> > information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
> notified
> > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
> reliance
> > on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
> > unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> > us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your
> > system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
> transmission
> > of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in
> its
> > receipt.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Pavan Kumar Kolamuri
>
Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of
feed or process entity
Posted by Sandeep Samudrala <sa...@gmail.com>.
I agree with above point to handle submission time. But again an entity can
be submitted and scheduled with different users, in which case the user
with which schedule is ran will be used. We might have to handle even
scheduling part. I think rather than handling ACL at various levels, the
whole ACL can be improved as part of FALCON-1367
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1367>.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM, pavan kumar Kolamuri <
pavan.kolamuri@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even i agree that user2 shouldn't update/delete/suspend the entity, but we
> should be consistent across all API's for the same. As of now submit is
> allowed if user belongs to the same group of ACL owner group right ? Should
> we also change this behaviour to make sure only ACL owner should be allowed
> to submit ?
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Pallavi Rao <pa...@inmobi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Agree that "user2" shouldn't be allowed to just update the entity and
> > change the ownership. All the more reason to have a separate Auth API,
> > rather than embed the ACL in the entity itself. Such issues can be
> handled
> > in a much cleaner way.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pallavi
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Balu Vellanki <
> bvellanki@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Team,
> > >
> > > Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support for
> > > permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who
> > > belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
> > >
> > > If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and the
> > > falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users" permission="*"/>,
> > > then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this
> > entity.
> > > I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is
> > > superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please comment if
> > you
> > > disagree.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Balu Velalnki
> > >
> >
> > --
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > The information contained in this communication is intended solely for
> the
> > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> > authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
> privileged
> > information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
> notified
> > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
> reliance
> > on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
> > unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> > us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your
> > system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
> transmission
> > of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in
> its
> > receipt.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Pavan Kumar Kolamuri
>
Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of
feed or process entity
Posted by pavan kumar Kolamuri <pa...@gmail.com>.
Even i agree that user2 shouldn't update/delete/suspend the entity, but we
should be consistent across all API's for the same. As of now submit is
allowed if user belongs to the same group of ACL owner group right ? Should
we also change this behaviour to make sure only ACL owner should be allowed
to submit ?
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Pallavi Rao <pa...@inmobi.com> wrote:
> Agree that "user2" shouldn't be allowed to just update the entity and
> change the ownership. All the more reason to have a separate Auth API,
> rather than embed the ACL in the entity itself. Such issues can be handled
> in a much cleaner way.
>
> Regards,
> Pallavi
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Balu Vellanki <bv...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Team,
> >
> > Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support for
> > permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who
> > belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
> >
> > If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and the
> > falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users" permission="*"/>,
> > then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this
> entity.
> > I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is
> > superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please comment if
> you
> > disagree.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
> >
> > Thanks
> > Balu Velalnki
> >
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________
> The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged
> information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance
> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your
> system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission
> of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its
> receipt.
>
--
Regards
Pavan Kumar Kolamuri
Re: [Discuss] : Should a non-superuser be allowed to update ACL of
feed or process entity
Posted by Pallavi Rao <pa...@inmobi.com>.
Agree that "user2" shouldn't be allowed to just update the entity and
change the ownership. All the more reason to have a separate Auth API,
rather than embed the ACL in the entity itself. Such issues can be handled
in a much cleaner way.
Regards,
Pallavi
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Balu Vellanki <bv...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Today, Feed/Process entities have ACL with owner and group. Support for
> permissions is not implemented yet. Any user who is the owner OR who
> belongs to the group can update/delete/suspend the entity.
>
> If two users "user1" and "user2" belong to same group "users" and the
> falcon entity ACL is <ACL owner="user1" group="users" permission="*"/>,
> then user2 can update the falcon entity and claim ownership of this entity.
> I believe that user2 should not be allowed to do so unless it is
> superuser. Similar behavior is not allowed in HDFS. Please comment if you
> disagree.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1340
>
> Thanks
> Balu Velalnki
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance
on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your
system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission
of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its
receipt.