Any example? The original code fragment suggest our current security model does not map cleanly into shiro. I am +1 on the first pass to reduce the "if-else" ugliness if possible.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Kevin Sweeney <kevi...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm thinking that flag will control which Guice bindings are applied, so > there would be 2 parallel implementations for a bit. This would necessitate > factoring out capabilityValidator calls to a decorator class (or risk > having #ifdef-like logic everywhere in SchedulerThriftInterface). > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> > wrote: > >> How do you envision things looking in the intermediate phase where we have >> support for both security modes? >> >> I imagine it's easy enough on the Shiro side of if we go with the AOP >> annotations for authorization (the interceptor can just check if >> security_mode == SHIRO before doing anything), but that means we'd still >> have the legacy sessionValidator code in every RPC impl that would need to >> be wrapped in the inverse check (security_mode == CAPABILITY_VALIDATOR). >> >> Would it make sense to do a first pass to refactor the existing auth >> checking logic to a reusable method, or are we ok living with the temporary >> ugliness involved in adding that mode checking wrapper to all the existing >> auth code? >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Sweeney <kevi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 to this proposal. >> > > >> > > Will we have dual implementations of API methods as we deprecate the >> > > SessionKey based API methods? >> > > >> > Yes for backwards-compatibility I think we'll need a flag to indicate >> which >> > system to use. It will probably be an all-or-nothing setting (think >> > -security_mode=SHIRO|CAPABILITY_VALIDATOR). >> > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Kevin Sweeney <kevi...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I've been thinking about revamping the authentication and >> authorization >> > > in >> > > > the scheduler recently. I've investigated Apache Shiro >> > > > <http://shiro.apache.org/> and I think it would fit into the >> scheduler >> > > > nicely as a replacement for our custom CapabilityValidator >> > > > < >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://people.apache.org/~kevints/aurora/dist/0.5.0-incubating/javadoc/org/apache/aurora/auth/CapabilityValidator.html >> > > > > >> > > > framework (for which there currently exists no implementation). >> > > > >> > > > I'd like feedback on this proposal. >> > > > Status Quo >> > > > >> > > > Security is currently implemented by a hand-rolled SessionValidator >> > > > < >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://people.apache.org/~kevints/aurora/dist/0.5.0-incubating/javadoc/org/apache/aurora/auth/SessionValidator.html >> > > > > >> > > > framework. No public implementations exist. >> > > > Proposal >> > > > >> > > > Change the scheduler to use the Apache Shiro framework for >> > authentication >> > > > and authorization. Move authentication from application to transport >> > > layer >> > > > and move authorization to the Shiro Permissions model. >> > > > Advantages >> > > > >> > > > A few things that will become possible once this work is complete: >> > > > >> > > > 1. Ability to configure secure Aurora client-to-scheduler with a >> simple >> > > > flat configuration file (shiro.ini >> > > > <http://shiro.apache.org/configuration.html>). >> > > > >> > > > 2. Ability to integrate Aurora with my enterprise SSO (Kerberos+LDAP >> > for >> > > > example) by implementing a custom Shiro Realm >> > > > <http://shiro.apache.org/realm.html>. >> > > > >> > > > 3. Ability to allow a CI server to continuously deploy to every >> role's >> > > > "staging" environment without being able to touch its "prod" one by >> > using >> > > > Shiro's WildcardPermission >> > > > < >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://shiro.apache.org/static/1.2.3/apidocs/org/apache/shiro/authz/permission/WildcardPermission.html >> > > > > >> > > > . >> > > > >> > > > 4. Ability to authenticate to the scheduler API using Kerberos (via >> > > SPNEGO >> > > > <http://spnego.sourceforge.net/>) or HTTP Basic auth. >> > > > >> > > > 5. Ability to perform authenticated write operations on a job via the >> > web >> > > > UI >> > > > < >> > http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/http-authentication >> > > >. >> > > > Suggested Reading >> > > > >> > > > Shiro has excellent documentation and is a fellow Apache Foundation >> > > > project. I suggest you check out at least the 10-minute tutorial >> > > > <http://shiro.apache.org/10-minute-tutorial.html> and the Guice >> > > > integration >> > > > documentation <http://shiro.apache.org/guice.html>. >> > > > Scheduler-side changes >> > > > >> > > > The best way to show the proposed changes is by example. In addition >> to >> > > > Guice wiring changes to place the Shiro authentication filter into >> the >> > > > request chain, code that previously looked like >> > > > >> > > > @Override >> > > > >> > > > public Response createJob( >> > > > >> > > > JobConfiguration mutableJob, >> > > > >> > > > @Nullable final Lock mutableLock, >> > > > >> > > > SessionKey session) { >> > > > >> > > > requireNonNull(session); >> > > > >> > > > try { >> > > > >> > > > sessionValidator.checkAuthenticated( >> > > > >> > > > session, >> > > > >> > > > ImmutableSet.of(mutableJob.getKey().getRole())); >> > > > >> > > > } catch (AuthFailedException e) { >> > > > >> > > > return errorResponse(AUTH_FAILED, e); >> > > > >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > // Request is authenticated and authorized, continue. >> > > > >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > becomes >> > > > >> > > > @Override >> > > > >> > > > public Response createJob( >> > > > >> > > > JobConfiguration mutableJob, >> > > > >> > > > @Nullable final Lock mutableLock) { >> > > > >> > > > // subject is injected in the constructor by Guice each request. >> > > > >> > > > // checkPermission will throw an unchecked >> > > > >> > > > // AuthorizationException that bubbles up as a 401. >> > > > >> > > > // This line could also be inserted by inspection of the method >> > > > >> > > > // call in a security AOP layer. >> > > > >> > > > subject.checkPermission( >> > > > >> > > > // A Shiro WildcardPermission job:create:mesos:prod:labrat >> > > > >> > > > new JobScopedPermission("job:create", mutableJob.getKey())); >> > > > >> > > > // Request is authenticated and authorized, continue. >> > > > >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > Some admin methods are protected by annotations like >> > > > >> > > > @Requires(Capability.PROVISIONER) >> > > > >> > > > public Response startMaintenance(Set<String> hosts, SessionKey >> session) >> > > { … >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > They'd become >> > > > >> > > > @RequiresPermission("maintenance:create") >> > > > >> > > > public Response startMaintenance(Set<String> hosts) { … } >> > > > Client-side changes >> > > > >> > > > No changes are necessary to use HTTP Basic Auth - requests will >> > > > automatically use a .netrc file today. >> > > > >> > > > An optional dependency on kerberos and requests-kerberos can be added >> > to >> > > > support SPNEGO authentication. >> > > > Timeline >> > > > >> > > > I would like to land support for HTTP Basic Auth and SPNEGO in 0.8.0 >> > and >> > > > deprecate the SessionKey-based API for authentication in favor of >> fully >> > > > transport-based authentication. >> > > > >> > > > In 0.9.0 I propose removing SessionKey from the API entirely along >> with >> > > > SessionValidator from the scheduler. >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Zameer Manji >> > > >> > >>
