Denis, In general, code changes look good to me. If we decide to keep security API in its current state for a while, I highly recommend to extend its documentation. We don't have descriptive javadocs or articles about security API so far, so I expect that next contributors will face difficulties in untangling security logic. Let's help them a bit. See more details in my JIRA comment: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12759
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:54 PM Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Denis, > > I'll review your PR. If this issue is a subject to be included in 2.8.1 in > emergency mode, I'm ok with the current API changes. > Please think about driving creating IEP on security API overhaul prior to > 2.9. I believe that you are the most suitable Ignite community member to > drive this activity. I'd love to share some ideas as well. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, guys! >> >> >> I agree that we should rework the security API, but it can take a long >> time. >> >> And currently, our users have certain impediments that are blockers for >> their job. >> >> I think we have to fix bugs that IEP-41 [1] contains as soon as possible >> to >> support our users. >> >> From my point of view, IEP-41 is the best place to track bug fixing. >> >> >> >> 1. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-41%3A+Security+Context+of+thin+client+on+remote+nodes >> >> >> вт, 24 мар. 2020 г. в 12:26, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Alexey, >> > >> > That can be another version of our plan. If everyone agrees that >> > SecurityContext and SecuritySubject should be merged, such fix of thin >> > clients' issue will bring us closer to the final solution. >> > Denis, what do you think? >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:38 AM Alexei Scherbakov < >> > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Why can't we start gradually changing security API right now ? >> > > I see no point in delaying with. >> > > All changes will go to next 2.9 release anyway. >> > > >> > > My proposal: >> > > 1. Get rid of security context. Doing this will bring security API to >> > more >> > > or less consistent state. >> > > 2. Remove IEP-41 because it's no longer needed because of change [1] >> > > 3. Propose an IEP to make security API avoid using internals. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > пн, 23 мар. 2020 г. в 19:53, Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > > Hello, Alexei, Ivan! >> > > > >> > > > >> Seems like security API is indeed a bit over-engineered >> > > > >> > > > Nobody has doubt we should do a reworking of GridSecurityProcessor. >> > > > But this point is outside of scope thin client's problem that we are >> > > > solving. >> > > > I think we can create new IEP that will accumulate all ideas of >> > Ignite's >> > > > security improvements. >> > > > >> > > > >> Presence of the separate #securityContext(UUID) highlights that >> user >> > > > indeed should care >> > > > >> about propagation of thin clients' contexts between the cluster >> > nodes. >> > > > >> > > > I agree with Ivan. I've implemented both variants, >> > > > and I like one with #securityContext(UUID) more. >> > > > >> > > > Could you please take a look at PR [1] for the issue [2]? >> > > > >> > > > 1. https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7523 >> > > > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12759 >> > > > >> > > > пн, 23 мар. 2020 г. в 11:45, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>: >> > > > >> > > > > Alex, Denis, >> > > > > >> > > > > Seems like security API is indeed a bit over-engineered. >> > > > > >> > > > > Let's get rid of SecurityContext and use SecuritySubject instead. >> > > > > > SecurityContext is just a POJO wrapper over >> > > > > > SecuritySubject's >> > > > > > org.apache.ignite.plugin.security.SecuritySubject#permissions. >> > > > > > It's functionality can be easily moved to SecuritySubject. >> > > > > >> > > > > I totally agree. Both subject and context are implemented by >> plugin >> > > > > provider, and I don't see any reason to keep both abstractions, >> > > > especially >> > > > > if we are going to get rid of transferring subject in node >> attributes >> > > > > (argument that subject is more lightweight won't work anymore). >> > > > > >> > > > > Also, there's kind of mess in node authentication logic. There >> are at >> > > > least >> > > > > two components responsible for it: DiscoverySpiNodeAuthenticator >> > (which >> > > > is >> > > > > forcibly set by GridDiscoveryManager, but in fact public) and >> > > > > GridSecurityProcessor (which performs actual node auth logic, but >> > > > private). >> > > > > I also don't understand why we need both >> > > > > #authenticate(AuthenticationContext) and >> > #authenticateNode(ClusterNode, >> > > > > SecurityCredentials) methods while it's possible to set explicit >> > > > > SecuritySubjectType.REMOTE_NODE in AuthenticationContext (this is >> > > > arguable; >> > > > > perhaps there are strong reasons). >> > > > > >> > > > > Finally, areas of responsibility between IgniteSecurity and >> > > > > GridSecurityProcessor are kind of mixed. As far as I understand, >> the >> > > > first >> > > > > is responsible for Ignite-internal management of security logic >> > > (keeping >> > > > > thread-local context, caching security contexts, etc; we don't >> expect >> > > > > IgniteSecurity to be replaced by plugin provider) and the latter >> is >> > > > > responsible for user-custom authentication / authorization logic. >> To >> > be >> > > > > honest, it took plenty of time to figure this out for me. >> > > > > >> > > > > From my point of view, we should make GridSecurityProcessor >> interface >> > > > > public, rename it (it requires plenty of time to find the >> difference >> > > from >> > > > > IgniteSecurity), make its API as simple and non-duplicating as >> > possible >> > > > and >> > > > > clarify its area of responsibility (e.g. should it be responsible >> for >> > > > > propagation of successfully authenticated subject among all nodes >> or >> > > > not?) >> > > > > to make it easy to embed custom security logic in Ignite. >> > > > > >> > > > > Regarding thin clients fix: implementation made by Denis suits >> better >> > > to >> > > > > the very implicit contract that it's better to change API >> contracts >> > of >> > > an >> > > > > internal IgniteSecurity than of internal GridSecurityProcessor >> (which >> > > > > actually mustn't be internal). >> > > > > >> > > > > > My approach doesn't require any IEPs, just minor change in code >> and >> > > to >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.IgniteSecurity#authenticate(AuthenticationContext) >> > > > > > contract. >> > > > > >> > > > > Looks like a misuse of #authenticate method to me. It should >> perform >> > > > > initial authentication based on credentials (this may include >> queries >> > > to >> > > > > external authentication subsystem, e.g. LDAP). User may want to >> don't >> > > > > authenticate thin client on every node (this will increase the >> number >> > > of >> > > > > requests to auth subsystem unless user implicitly implements >> > > propagation >> > > > of >> > > > > thin clients' contexts between nodes and make #authenticate >> > > cluster-wide >> > > > > idempotent: first call should perform actual authentication, next >> > calls >> > > > > should retrieve context of already authenticated client). >> Presence of >> > > the >> > > > > separate #securityContext(UUID) highlights that user indeed should >> > care >> > > > > about propagation of thin clients' contexts between the cluster >> > nodes. >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Ivan >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 12:22 PM Veena Mithare < >> > > v.mith...@cmcmarkets.com >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Alexei, Denis, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > One of the main usecases of thin client authentication is to be >> > able >> > > to >> > > > > > audit the changes done using the thin client user. >> > > > > > To enable that : >> > > > > > We really need to resolve this concern as well : >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12781 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ( Incorrect security subject id is associated with a cache_put >> > event >> > > > > > when the originator of the event is a thin client. ) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > Veena >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > From: Alexei Scherbakov <alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > Sent: 18 March 2020 08:11 >> > > > > > To: dev <dev@ignite.apache.org> >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Security Subject of thin client on remote nodes >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Denis Garus, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Both variants are capable of solving the thin client security >> > context >> > > > > > problem. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > My approach doesn't require any IEPs, just minor change in code >> and >> > > to >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.IgniteSecurity#authenticate(AuthenticationContext) >> > > > > > contract. >> > > > > > We can add appropriate documentation to emphasize this. >> > > > > > The argument "fragile" is not very convincing for me. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think we should collect more opinions before proceeding with >> IEP. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Considering a fact we actually *may not care* about >> compatibility >> > > (I've >> > > > > > already explained why), I'm thinking of another approach. >> > > > > > Let's get rid of SecurityContext and use SecuritySubject >> instead. >> > > > > > SecurityContext is just a POJO wrapper over SecuritySubject's >> > > > > > org.apache.ignite.plugin.security.SecuritySubject#permissions. >> > > > > > It's functionality can be easily moved to SecuritySubject. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What do you think? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > пн, 16 мар. 2020 г. в 15:47, Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com>: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hello, Alexei! >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I agree with you if we may not care about compatibility at >> all, >> > > then >> > > > > > > we can solve the problem much more straightforward way. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In your case, the method GridSecurityProcessor#authenticate >> will >> > > have >> > > > > > > an implicit contract: >> > > > > > > [ if actx.subject() != null then >> > > > > > > returns SecurityContext >> > > > > > > else >> > > > > > > do authenticate ] >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It looks fragile. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > When we extend the GridSecurityProcessor, there isn't this >> > problem: >> > > > > > > we have the explicit contract and can make default >> implementation >> > > > that >> > > > > > > throws an unsupported operation exception to enforcing >> > > compatibility >> > > > > > > check. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In any case, we need to change GridSecurityProcessor >> > > implementation. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But I think your proposal to try to find a security context in >> > the >> > > > > > > node's attributes first is right for backward compatibility >> when >> > > > > > > Ignite users don't use thin clients. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Summary: >> > > > > > > I suggest adding a new method to GridSecurityProcessor >> because it >> > > has >> > > > > > > a clear contract and enforces compatibility check natural way. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > вс, 15 мар. 2020 г. в 17:13, Alexei Scherbakov < >> > > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Denis Garus, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I've looked at the IEP proposed by you and currently I'm >> > thinking >> > > > > > > > it's >> > > > > > > not >> > > > > > > > immediately required. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The problem of missing SecurityContexts of thin clients can >> be >> > > > > > > > solved >> > > > > > > much >> > > > > > > > easily. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Below is the stub of a fix, it requires correct >> implementation >> > of >> > > > > > > > method >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.IgniteSecurityProcessor >> > > > > > > #authenticatedSubject >> > > > > > > > by GridSecurityProcessor: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > /** {@inheritDoc} */ >> > > > > > > > @Override public OperationSecurityContext >> withContext(UUID >> > > > > nodeId) >> > > > > > { >> > > > > > > > try { >> > > > > > > > SecurityContext ctx0 = secCtxs.get(nodeId); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > if (ctx0 == null) { >> > > > > > > > ClusterNode node = >> > > > > > > > Optional.ofNullable(ctx.discovery().node(nodeId)) >> > > > > > > > .orElseGet(() -> >> > > > > > > > ctx.discovery().historicalNode(nodeId)); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > // This is a cluster node. >> > > > > > > > if (node != null) >> > > > > > > > ctx0 = nodeSecurityContext(marsh, >> > > > > > > > U.resolveClassLoader(ctx.config()), findNode(nodeId)); >> > > > > > > > else { >> > > > > > > > // This is already authenticated thin >> > client. >> > > > > > > > SecuritySubject subj = >> > > > > > > > authenticatedSubject(nodeId); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > assert subj != null : "Subject is null >> " + >> > > > > > > > nodeId; >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > AuthenticationContext actx = new >> > > > > > > > AuthenticationContext(); >> > > > > > > > actx.subject(subj); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ctx0 = secPrc.authenticate(actx); >> > > > > > > > } >> > > > > > > > } >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > secCtxs.putIfAbsent(nodeId, ctx0); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > return withContext(ctx0); >> > > > > > > > } catch (IgniteCheckedException e) { >> > > > > > > > throw new IgniteException(e); >> > > > > > > > } >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The idea is to create a thin client SecurityContext on a >> node >> > not >> > > > > > > > having >> > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > local context using existing SecuritySubject data. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Method >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.GridSecurityProcessor#a >> > > > > > > uthenticate >> > > > > > > > should check for not null SecuritySubject field and just >> > recreate >> > > > > > > > SecurityContext using passed info (because it's already >> > > > > authenticated). >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > We have all necessary information in SecuritySubject >> returned >> > by >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.IgniteSecurityProcessor >> > > > > > > #authenticatedSubject >> > > > > > > > by GridSecurityProcessor method. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Because it is internal API, we may not care about >> > compatibility >> > > at >> > > > > > > > all, but nevertheless it is possible to add compatibility >> check >> > > in >> > > > > > > > the method above. If a feature is not supported the >> operations >> > > from >> > > > > > > > thin clients should be forbidden. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > You proposal has the similar problem: if >> GridSecurityProcessor >> > > does >> > > > > > > > not support retriving context for thin clients, such clients >> > will >> > > > > > > > not be able to proceed with operation. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Still, the cleanup of security API is necessary and should >> be >> > > done >> > > > > > > > in 3.0 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > чт, 12 мар. 2020 г. в 16:48, VeenaMithare < >> > > > v.mith...@cmcmarkets.com >> > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > HI , >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Created this jira : >> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12781 >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > regards, >> > > > > > > > > Veena. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > Sent from: >> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov >> > > > > > ________________________________ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Spread bets and CFDs are complex instruments and come with a >> high >> > > risk >> > > > of >> > > > > > losing money rapidly due to leverage. 70.5% of retail investor >> > > accounts >> > > > > > lose money when spread betting and/or trading CFDs with this >> > > provider. >> > > > > You >> > > > > > should consider whether you understand how spread bets and CFDs >> > work >> > > > and >> > > > > > whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your >> money. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Professional clients: Losses can exceed deposits when spread >> > betting >> > > > and >> > > > > > trading CFDs. Countdowns carry a level of risk to your capital >> as >> > you >> > > > > could >> > > > > > lose all of your investment. These products may not be suitable >> for >> > > all >> > > > > > clients therefore ensure you understand the risks and seek >> > > independent >> > > > > > advice. Invest only what you can afford to lose. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > CMC Markets UK plc (173730) and CMC Spreadbet plc (170627) are >> > > > authorised >> > > > > > and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United >> > > Kingdom. >> > > > > CMC >> > > > > > Markets UK plc and CMC Spreadbet plc are registered in England >> and >> > > > Wales >> > > > > > with Company Numbers 02448409 and 02589529 and with their >> > registered >> > > > > > offices at 133 Houndsditch, London, EC3A 7BX. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The content of this e-mail (including any attachments) is >> strictly >> > > > > > confidential and is for the sole use of the intended >> addressee(s). >> > If >> > > > you >> > > > > > are not the intended recipient of this e-mail please notify the >> > > sender >> > > > > > immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. Any >> > disclosure, >> > > > > > copying, dissemination or use of its content (including any >> > > > attachments) >> > > > > is >> > > > > > strictly prohibited. CMC Markets UK plc and CMC Spreadbet plc >> > reserve >> > > > the >> > > > > > right to intercept and monitor the content of the e-mail >> messages >> > to >> > > > and >> > > > > > from its systems. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > E-mails may be interfered with or may contain viruses or other >> > > defects >> > > > > for >> > > > > > which CMC Markets UK plc and CMC Spreadbet plc accept no >> > > > responsibility. >> > > > > It >> > > > > > is the responsibility of the recipient to carry out a virus >> check >> > on >> > > > the >> > > > > > e-mail and any attachment(s). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This communication is not intended as an offer or solicitation >> for >> > > the >> > > > > > purchase or sale of a financial instrument or as an official >> > > > confirmation >> > > > > > of any transaction unless specifically presented as such. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > CMC Markets UK plc and CMC Spreadbet plc are registered in >> England >> > > and >> > > > > > Wales with Company Numbers 02448409 and 02589529 and with their >> > > > > registered >> > > > > > offices at 133 Houndsditch, London, EC3A 7BX. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Alexei Scherbakov >> > > >> > >> >
