Hi Katherine,

Not controversial at all ;) different sub-groups of the galaxy community just have different needs. I'm in one of those that needs this, but I likewise agree with the devs that a "password" field is not an optimal solution.

I've proposed something a while back which might achieve what you need, but it is a long ways (~1-2 months on my current calendar) from implementation which I realise isn't very helpful right now. (If there are people who are motivated for this idea, I would be happy to work with them on this. I'm more interested in the functionality than I am in any credit for implementing it ;) )

I'm proposing a framework for "Credentials for Remote Services" as this is a pretty generic problem. The gist of it is:

I am not tackling the encryption portion too heavily, credentials would be encrypted with the galaxy id_secret going into the database (and probably salted as well), and then exposed as environment variables orso when the job is constructed. Anything past that is increasingly less important for me, any sys admin running Galaxy has access to do much more malicious things anyway.

There are a couple of specifics I still need to work out (mostly syntax things for how tools should declare these variables, and how they should consume them) but I think this would be a much more generic option and allow for more exciting things in the future. This is what I envision people selecting in the UI.


On 28. juli 2016 10:53, Katherine Beaulieu wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I know this is sort of a controversial topic so I will try to tread lightly. It seems that for a couple of years the idea of a password parameter for Galaxy tools has come up a lot but has also been rejected a lot although I believe there is a lot of merit to it. I have found at least two other times where people have tried to implement this and it was rejected, but there must have been a reason why they needed that parameter. My situation currently is that I have created two tools in Galaxy which communicate with another software called iRODS which needs authentication from the user. In my own department, there is another tool that was created which needed authentication from the user but the developer had to create some other workaround for this problem. 

In terms of the work I have done for this so far, I have been working off the latest release version of Galaxy. I have implemented the field so that it is obfuscated in the tool form view as well as on the tool info page. I will next be looking into storing the parameter in an environment variable so it doesn't get passed through the command line and encrypting the password before it enters the database. Speaking with a co-worker of mine, we discussed the possibility of implementing two option, irreversible encryption of the password as it gets entered into the database but then making the tool not workflow compatible, or using regular encryption and making the tool workflow compatible. I look forward to hearing your opinions and ideas.


Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:

Eric Rasche
Programmer II

Center for Phage Technology
Rm 312A, Biochemistry & Biophysics
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843