[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-12758?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15129672#comment-15129672
 ] 

Anu Engineer commented on HADOOP-12758:
---------------------------------------

bq. I am trying to strike the balance between CSRF protection and breaking 
existing consumers.
I appreciate that thought. I am trying to make sure that security provided by 
your last patch is not compromised and end-users have a consistent behavior.

bq. default to non exclusions and require admins to override for any 
user-agents that are desired

I think we should default to non-exclusions, and let admins override for any 
user agents they want. 
The reason is security. User-agent is a string that can be easily spoofed. 
So assuming that a client is *not* a browser based on a string like that does 
not look very secure. 

> Extend CSRF Filter with UserAgent Checks
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-12758
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-12758
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: security
>            Reporter: Larry McCay
>            Assignee: Larry McCay
>             Fix For: 2.8.0
>
>         Attachments: HADOOP-12758-001.patch, HADOOP-12758-002.patch
>
>
> To protect against CSRF attacks, HADOOP-12691 introduces a CSRF filter that 
> will require a specific HTTP header to be sent with every REST API call. This 
> will affect all API consumers from web apps to CLIs and curl. 
> Since CSRF is primarily a browser based attack we can try and minimize the 
> impact on non-browser clients.
> This enhancement will provide additional configuration for identifying 
> non-browser useragents and skipping the enforcement of the header requirement 
> for anything identified as a non-browser. This will largely limit the impact 
> to browser based PUT and POST calls when configured appropriately.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to