potiuk commented on issue #61645:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61645#issuecomment-4212433885

   I think that deserves a devlist discussion. While I understand the need to 
manage such bundle configuration, I do not think personally this is necessary 
good idea to do it via REST API. If you look at our (updated wiht 3.2.0) 
security model 
https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/security/security_model.html
 - this approach introduce a compleletly new ,security realm for Airflow. It's 
been vastly updated now and refreshed for Airflow 3.2 and you are welcome to 
take a deep look there and understand some basica assumptions of security 
principles and isolation between roles, components and workflows that we have 
in Airflow. This should be a good and deep reading before starting discussion 
on devlist - because this will be the first question you will get asked when 
you raise such proposal in devlist.
   
   So Phase 2 in your case is not even nearly enough - and it should be rather 
Phase 0. We need to know what kind of security realm we are proposing, what 
kind of roles it creates for Airflow and whether we want to take some risks in 
Airlfow for moving part of the currently delegated security responsibility (to 
deployment and Deployment Manager) - to be handled by Airflow software.
   
   Currrently bundle definition, access to Dags and configuration of Airflow - 
including where Dags are retrieved from, what is the bundle definition etc. is 
strictly limited to "Deployment Manager" role. Deployment Manager uses 
Deployment-specific mechanisms to set the configuration and manage it - and 
it's not exposed or managed for security from Airflow "software" point of view 
- it is left entirely to Deployment Manager and all kinds of security 
mechanisms that are specific to deployment type chosen by Deployment Manager. 
   
   By adding Dag Bundle configuration, we are extending the model with a new 
Role - someone who can manage part of Airflow configuration - boundle 
definition - via API and api -server.
   
   This has far-reaching implication. For example currently api-server can be 
run in an environment where airflow configuration - including bundle definition 
is read only. And this is a built-in security feature - it makes it simply 
impossible, even if api-server security is broken, to permanently change 
configuration of Airflow remotely via REST API .
   
   So while I am not 100% against such feature - it has to be first discussed 
in the devlist and it should be - eventually voted on - likely with a complete 
AIP describing security implications, new roles proposed, scope and security 
boundaries of such change.
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to