Re: Authorization for Configuration

[Ali Nazemian <al...@gmail.com>]

Would it be based on the operation as well? Like be able to read or modify.
So is this scenario valid? from the user experience perspective, a user may
be authorised to change the indexing/enrichment config (because there is
only one topology for them), but because he/she doesn't have sufficient
privilege to apply parser configs may not be able to modify that through
the management UI? I personally think it would be better to keep it simple
to be able to make it consistent across all the configs. For example, very
few roles (groups) to be able to either read configs or also modify them.
Having per sensor access management might be something that can be added
later on. I guess when it comes to CLI, it may become even more confusing
to have per sensor access for parsers and as a whole for the rest.

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 1:36 AM Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To start with, I'm thinking just the configuration, in particular anything
> that touches the ConfigurationsUtils.  I think for the first pass, we could
> leave reading from configs out of it and focus on who can write configs
> (since that's more disruptive to the system).
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this is:
>
>    - Configuration through the Management UI
>    - Configuration through the CLI (e.g. the push script + Stellar + any
>    other scripts that have to do it).
>
> In terms of how fine-grained, I would essentially expect this to be at the
> users+groups level and the individual sensor / topology level (e.g. parsers
> can be authorized individually by users/group, indexing is on the whole).
> Essentially, I don't propose trying to rearchitect things to try to have
> multiple indexing topologies for complete separation, etc.  Just to take
> the existing setup and be able to apply authorization on top of it.
>
> I would expect anything covered by the ZK configs to be done as part of
> this effort (possibly in stages).  As noted, I would expect this to be a
> feature branch rather than piecemeal replacement.
>
> @Mike Yeah, I agree. The Jira for that doesn't exist yet, pretty much
> pending this exact conversation winding down.
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:08 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Justin, It probably makes sense to provide a list of these configuration
> > items as subtasks on the FB Jira so that we can crosscheck what entry
> > points have been implemented against the test scripts. Do you think this
> > will impact streaming enrichments or the profiler at all? That is to say,
> > as Ali asked, just how far are you looking to take the fine grained auth
> > scope for this?
> >
> > M
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:37 PM Ali Nazemian <al...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Justin,
> > >
> > > By configuration do you mean the sensor related configurations only?
> Are
> > > you limiting the scope of this activity to the management-UI or also
> > > Alert-UI as well? For example, defining different roles (pre-defined
> > > or customizable) and the fine-grained integration with Ranger?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Ali
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:25 AM Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Right now, our various configs can be modified by anyone with access
> to
> > > the
> > > > various scripts. I'd like to start a discussion around building out
> > some
> > > > authorization to be able to add some more fine grained controls
> around
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > Other projects have some variants on how to accomplish this.
> > Typically,
> > > > this follows a pattern of calling out to a interface/class that takes
> > in
> > > > the operation and context (user and other info) and returns
> true/false
> > if
> > > > something is authorized.
> > > >
> > > > In my mind, what we would need out of this is
> > > >
> > > >    - Ability to apply fine grained permissions
> > > >    - The various scripts and UI should flow this authorization
> > framework.
> > > >    I believe most (if not all) of our configuration flows through
> > > >    ConfigurationsUtils.  Anything that doesn't should either be
> hooked
> > in
> > > > or
> > > >    refactored to flow through the same codepaths.
> > > >    - Pluggability. We shouldn't force only one authorizer.
> > > >
> > > > In particular, I'm proposing we use Apache Ranger
> > > > <https://ranger.apache.org/> as a supported authorization framework,
> > > > implementing it alongside the authorization framework to validate
> what
> > we
> > > > build. In my mind, the main catch with Ranger is that, based on my
> > > > understanding, we won't be able to restrict users with direct access
> to
> > > > ZooKeeper via it's CLI (e.g. Ranger can't mirror it's ACLs down into
> > ZK's
> > > > ACLs).  I believe this is a reasonable restriction, especially as the
> > > > management UI gets improved to handle more of the configuration
> burden
> > > and
> > > > the number of users with access to ZK CLI begins to decrease.  Users
> > can
> > > > still add ZK ACLs separately to enforce that access there.
> > > >
> > > > For anyone not familiar with Ranger, essentially you build a plugin
> > that
> > > > hooks into the existing component's authorization framework (e.g. for
> > > > Storm, the plugin runs through the IAuthorizer
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://storm.apache.org/releases/1.2.2/javadocs/org/apache/storm/security/auth/IAuthorizer.html
> > > > >
> > > > interface, for Yarn it runs through YarnAuthorizationProvider
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-common/apidocs/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/security/YarnAuthorizationProvider.html
> > > > >).
> > > > Additionally, Ranger provides auditing capabilities for this
> > > authorization
> > > > and has plugins for a good portion of our stack already (so users can
> > > > already setup ACLs on HDFS, Storm, etc.). Checkout the Ranger Github
> > > > <https://github.com/apache/ranger> for a list of the plugins they
> have
> > > > built in.
> > > >
> > > > What this means for Metron is building out an authorization setup
> > similar
> > > > to Storm or Yarn or whatever we choose. We'll want this anyway, to
> > allow
> > > > our solution to be pluggable.  At that point, we build an
> > implementation
> > > of
> > > > the authorizer compatible with Ranger along with the plugin.
> > > >
> > > > I think this could probably be a fairly small feature branch, which
> I'm
> > > > suggesting primarily to do the Ranger implementation alongside the
> > > general
> > > > authorization work to validate what's being built.  I think the main
> > > > tasking would be something similar to:
> > > >
> > > >    - Build out pluggable authorization for our configs.
> > > >    - This includes testing (and possibly doing something similar to
> > > Storm,
> > > >    where they have a some testing IAuthorizers, e.g. NoopAuthorizer,
> > > >    DenyAuthorizer, etc.)
> > > >    - Ensure that all the code paths consistently flow through this
> > > >    Authorization.
> > > >    - Build a Ranger compatible version of this.
> > > >    - Define the Ranger plugin for this.
> > > >    - Make sure auditing is defined.
> > > >    - Integration testing (particularly with Kerberos. After all, if
> > they
> > > >    want to do authorization and auditing, they're almost certainly
> > using
> > > >    Kerberos).
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything missing that we'd need or want for this?  Are there
> > any
> > > > other concerns we'd want to make sure are taken care of?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > A.Nazemian
> > >
> >
>


-- 
A.Nazemian