message cut: I am fine with Option (1) given the current time constraints and since it is for dev only and can be iterated in follow-up releases
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 22:47, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am fine with Option (1) imo > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 22:05, Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Following back on that thread (I should probably have called it out >> during the Airflow 3 dev call). We have two options: >> - Option 1: update the banner with a friendlier message >> - Option 2: resolve the security issue to make SAM production compatible >> and remove the banner >> >> Any preference on which option we should go with? >> >> On 2025/03/24 16:52:11 "Oliveira, Niko" wrote: >> > Agreed, I think combining the two will make SAM not so simple. But we >> should definitely have an open source, easy to acquire option for people to >> use that has all the bells and whistles that SAM does not have. And >> KeyCloack is a decent option for this! >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> >> > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 6:04:42 AM >> > To: dev@airflow.apache.org >> > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] confusing alert re SimpleAuthManager >> > >> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not >> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know >> the content is safe. >> > >> > >> > >> > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur >> externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous >> ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas >> certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque. >> > >> > >> > >> > I do not think integrating KeyCloak with SAM is a great idea. Having a >> separate auth manager specific to KeyCloak is, on the other side, a good >> idea. We should keep SAM simple as it is. I also do not think making it >> secure require a lot of work so I do not think it is worth having a >> development and production mode. >> > >> > On 2025/03/21 21:52:13 Buğra Öztürk wrote: >> > > Giving users a warning sounds good. >> > > I agree with Pierre, too. How about defining the rules set to be >> secure by >> > > design? Or just following up on a pattern without discovering >> something >> > > new? Could you please elaborate on Jarek? >> > > >> > > *TLDR* >> > > It may be a slight implementation detail and just a thought, but we >> could >> > > integrate Keycloak into the SAM, providing development and production >> modes >> > > with configurations such as breeze dev and installation prod. I >> believe >> > > that instead of maintaining an application to always be secure by >> default, >> > > we can focus on maintaining integration within SAM. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 7:28 PM Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > We could simply stop printing out these passwords. Passwords are >> auto >> > > > generated if not already defined in a file configured in `[core] >> > > > simple_auth_manager_passwords_file`. So the user can see these >> passwords by >> > > > opening this file. We could (if it is not considered as unsecured?) >> print >> > > > out the filename in the stdout so that the user can click on it and >> see the >> > > > passwords only if some passwords changed. >> > > > >> > > > On 2025/03/21 18:03:19 Jarek Potiuk wrote: >> > > > > Well.. Actually Pierre is quite right. While we have not intended >> Simple >> > > > > Auth Manager for production it **could** be used. >> > > > > >> > > > > However we would have to carefully think what to do with default >> > > > passwords >> > > > > etc. Currently a lot of warnings in CodeQL were about "writing >> sensitive >> > > > > information to logs" - and a lot of that is about SAM (nice >> acronym BTW) >> > > > > writing the generated passwords to logs and stdout. And I >> dismissed it as >> > > > > "Used in tests" for SAM cases. >> > > > > >> > > > > So if we decide to use it, we need to decide how to deal with the >> > > > password >> > > > > generation and default users. We should follow (and this in the >> future >> > > > will >> > > > > be even mandated by various regulations like CRA) is "secure by >> default". >> > > > > Which means that default installation MUST be secure. Once we >> solve >> > > > this, I >> > > > > am fine with using SAM in production >> > > > > >> > > > > J. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:27 PM Pierre Jeambrun < >> pierrejb...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Is it really wrong to use the SimpleAuthManager in production ? >> To my >> > > > > > knowledge it lacks a lot of features such as user management >> and the >> > > > > > permission model is really simplistic, but maybe some >> installations >> > > > don’t >> > > > > > need the fancy Auth stuff ? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Instead of being a scary warning that could be just an info >> block, with >> > > > > > details and mention of other Auth Manager in case more use >> cases need >> > > > to be >> > > > > > supported. (Or link to doc etc) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Also we can easily add a “don’t show again” box or something >> like that, >> > > > > > stored on the client side and remove the message if chosen by >> the >> > > > user. (Or >> > > > > > even a global config setting for all users). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri 21 Mar 2025 at 16:03, Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > This alert can be definitely improved. I do think we should >> have it >> > > > and >> > > > > > we >> > > > > > > should not remove it. If you have some proposals, please feel >> free to >> > > > > > > create a PR, I'll be happy to review. Mentioning the other >> auth >> > > > managers >> > > > > > as >> > > > > > > alternatives is, I think, a great idea. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 2025/03/21 07:20:26 Amogh Desai wrote: >> > > > > > > > Hmmm, I wonder if it can instead be made clearer. Something >> like >> > > > this? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > *Simple Auth Manager Enabled.* >> > > > > > > > *The Simple Auth Manager is intended for development and >> testing. >> > > > If >> > > > > > > you're >> > > > > > > > using it in production, ensure that access is controlled >> through >> > > > other >> > > > > > > > means. * >> > > > > > > > *<link some doc>* >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, >> > > > > > > > Amogh Desai >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:58 PM Daniel Standish >> > > > > > > > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'm saying, sounds confusing! >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:27 AM <consta...@astronomer.io >> > > > .invalid> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Sounds great! Do we have something in the config linter >> to >> > > > > > highlight >> > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > > change? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2025, at 11:19 PM, Daniel Standish >> > > > > > > > > > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > It says this: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Development-only auth manager configured >> > > > > > > > > > > The auth manager configured in your environment is >> the Simple >> > > > > > Auth >> > > > > > > > > > Manager, >> > > > > > > > > > > which is intended for development use only. It is not >> > > > suitable >> > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > > production and should not be used in a production >> > > > environment. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:48 AM Jarek Potiuk < >> > > > ja...@potiuk.com >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> What's the alert - at least for me it did not get >> through >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:33 PM Daniel Standish >> > > > > > > > > > >> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> I should add, the import here is, many users who >> never >> > > > > > customized >> > > > > > > > > auth >> > > > > > > > > > >>> before will now see this message and not really >> have a clue >> > > > > > what >> > > > > > > they >> > > > > > > > > > are >> > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to do, and I think it will probably create >> a good >> > > > > > > amount of >> > > > > > > > > > >>> confusion. >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:27 AM Daniel Standish < >> > > > > > > > > > >>> daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I just saw this when spinning up airflow >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [image: image.png] >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think the message is confusing / misleading / >> not very >> > > > > > > helpful. >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> There's nothing necessarily wrong with having >> simple auth >> > > > or >> > > > > > no >> > > > > > > auth >> > > > > > > > > > if >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> you control access some other way. Moreover we >> don't tell >> > > > > > users >> > > > > > > > > what >> > > > > > > > > > >> they >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> should do instead! >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> So I think we should either remove this bubble or >> add more >> > > > > > > nuance >> > > > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> point them in a direction that will lead them to >> what we >> > > > *do* >> > > > > > > > > > recommend. >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Bugra Ozturk >> > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> >>
