Hi Colin When I refer to "standard" or "custom" algorithms I am following Java security Provider Terminology. You can refer to https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/StandardNames.html#TrustManagerFactory link I provided earlier in the emails. It says PKIX is the default Algorithm for TrustManagerFactory.
1. For SPIFFE, I am not sure why you are saying 'it does not implement custom algorithms' because the following file clearly indicates that it does use custom algorithm- https://github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/provider/SpiffeProvider.java#L17 Algorithm value: https://github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/provider/SpiffeProviderConstants.java#L6 @Harsha do you want to chime in since you use that provider? 2. I already mentioned in my 3rd point, in my previous post, why using ssl.provider does NOT work. I updated KIP-486 in "rejected alternatives" also why ssl.provider does not work. 3. Security.insertProviderAt() comments were based on assumption if KIP-492 changes are done and we use that mechanism to configure providers instead of ssl.provider configuration. Can you read my all the points, I mentioned in my previous post, very carefully? I am covering all the aspects in explaining. I am open to still discuss more to clarify any doubts. Thanks Maulin On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 9:52 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Maulin, > > A lot of JSSE providers don't implement custom algorithms. Spire is a > good example of a JSSE provider that doesn't, and yet is still useful to > many people. Your JSSE provider can work fine even if it doesn't implement > a custom algorithm. > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the discussion of > Security.insertProviderAt() that you included. SslEngineBuilder doesn't > use that API to get the security provider. Instead, it calls > "SSLContext.getInstance(protocol, provider)", where provider is the name of > the provider. > > best, > Colin > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019, at 20:13, Maulin Vasavada wrote: > > On top of everything above I feel strongly to add the 4th point which is > > based on Java APIs for TrustManagerFactory.init(KeyStore) ( > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/net/ssl/TrustManagerFactory.html#init(java.security.KeyStore) > ) > > and KeyManagerFactory.init(KeyStore, char[]) ( > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/net/ssl/KeyManagerFactory.html#init(java.security.KeyStore,%20char[]) > > ). > > > > 4. The above APIs are intended to support providing "trust/key material" > > from the user without having to write their own TrustManager/KeyManagers. > > To quote from the TrustManagerFactory.init()'s documentation "Initializes > > this factory with a source of certificate authorities and related trust > > material." > > To quote from the KeyManagerFactory.init()'s documentation "Initializes > > this factory with a source of key material." > > > > Based on this it is clear that there is a flexibility provided by Java to > > to enable developers to provide the required trust/key material loaded > from > > "anywhere" without requiring them to write custom provider OR trust/key > > managers. This same flexibility is reflected in Kafka code also where it > > loads the trust/keys from a local file and doesn't require writing a > > Provider necessarily. If we do NOT have a custom algorithm, it makes less > > sense to write a Provider. > > > > Thanks > > Maulin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:45 PM Maulin Vasavada < > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Harsha/Colin > > > > > > I did the sample with a custom Provider for TrustStoreManager and tried > > > using ssl.provider Kafka config AND the way KIP-492 is suggesting (by > > > adding Provider programmatically instead of relying on > > > ssl.provider+java.security. The below sample is followed by my detailed > > > findings. I'll appreciate if you can go through it carefully and see > if you > > > see my point. > > > > > > package providertest; > > > > > > import java.security.Provider; > > > > > > public class MyProvider extends Provider { > > > > > > private static final String name = "MyProvider"; > > > private static double version = 1.0d; > > > private static String info = "Maulin's SSL Provider v"+version; > > > > > > public MyProvider() { > > > super(name, version, info); > > > this.put("TrustManagerFactory.PKIX", > "providertest.MyTrustManagerFactory"); > > > } > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > *Details:* > > > > > > KIP-492 documents that it will use Security.addProvider() assuming it > will > > > add it as position '0' which is not a correct assumption. The > > > addProvider()'s documentation says it will add it to the last available > > > position. You may want to correct that to say > > > Security.insertProviderAt(provider, 1). > > > > > > Now coming back to our specific discussion, > > > > > > 1. SPIFFE example uses Custom Algorithm - spiffe. Hence when you add > that > > > provider in the provider list via Security.addProvider() the position > where > > > it gets added doesn't matter (even if you don't end up adding it as > first > > > entry) since that is the ONLY provider for SPIFFE specific algorithm > you > > > might have. > > > > > > We do *not* have custom algorithm for Key/Trust StoreMangers. Which > means > > > we have to use X509, PKIX etc "Standard Algorithms" (( > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/StandardNames.html > )) > > > in our provider to override the TrustStoreManager (see my sample code) > and > > > KeyStoreManger and KeyManager. This creates another challenge > mentioned in > > > the below point. > > > > > > 2. In order to make our Provider for loading custom TrustStore work, we > > > have to add the provider as 'first' in the list since there are others > with > > > the same algorithm. > > > > > > However, the programatic way of adding provider > > > (Security.insertProviderAt()) is *not* deterministic for ordering since > > > different code can call the method for a different provider and > depending > > > upon the order of the call our provider can be first or pushed down the > > > list. This can happen very well in any client application using Kafka. > This > > > is specially problematic for a case when you want to guarantee order > for a > > > Provider having "Standard Algorithms". > > > > > > If we add our provider in java.security file that definitely guarantees > > > the order(unless somebody calls removeProvider() which is less > likely). But > > > if we add our provider in java.security file it will defeat the > purpose of > > > the KIP-492. > > > > > > In the gist - Apache Kafka must not rely on "un-deterministic" method > to > > > rely on Provider ordering. > > > > > > 3. If we just use existing ssl.provider kafka configuration then our > > > provider will be used in SSLContext.getInstance(protocol, provider) > call in > > > SslFactory.java and if our provider does not have implementation for > > > SSLContext.TLS/TLSv1.1/TLSv1.2 etc it breaks (we tested it). Example: > In > > > MyProvider sample above you see that I didn't add SSLContext.TLSv1 as > > > "Service+Algorithm" and that didn't work for me. In SPIFFE provider you > > > don't have this challenge since you are planning to bypass > ssl.provider as > > > you mention in the KIP-492. > > > > > > > > > *Overall summary,* > > > > > > 1. Any provider based mechanisms- a) existing ssl.provider and > b)KIP-492, > > > for loading key/trust store using "Standard Algorithms" do not work > > > > > > 2. Approach suggested in our KIP-486 works without any issue and it is > > > *not* our context specific solve > > > > > > 3. Based on above we feel KIP-492 and KIP-486 are complimentary changes > > > and not contradicting or redundent. > > > > > > If you want we can do a joint session somehow to walk through the > sample I > > > have and various experiments I did. I would encourage you to do similar > > > exercise by writing a Provider for "Standard Algorithm" for > > > TrustStoreManager (like our needs) and see what you find since only > writing > > > samples can bring out the complexity/challenges we face. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Maulin > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:15 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Just to update - still working on it. Get to work only on and off on > it :( > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:05 PM Maulin Vasavada < > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Harsha > > >>> > > >>> Let me try to write samples and will let you know. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks > > >>> Maulin > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:00 PM Harsha Ch <harsha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Maulin, > > >>>> With java security providers can be as custom you would > like > > >>>> it to > > >>>> be. If you only want to to implement a custom way of loading the > > >>>> keystore and truststore and not implement any protocol/encryption > > >>>> handling > > >>>> you can leave them empty and no need to implement. > > >>>> Have you looked into the links I pasted before? > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeKeyStore.java > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeTrustManager.java > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeProvider.java > > >>>> > > >>>> Can you please tell me which methods are too complex in above to > > >>>> implement > > >>>> or unnecessary? You are changing anything in SSL/TLS implementations > > >>>> provided by > > >>>> > > >>>> All of the implementations delegating the checks to the default > > >>>> implementation anyway. > > >>>> Spire agent is an example, its nothing but a GRPC server listening > on a > > >>>> unix domain socket . Above code is making a RPC call to the local > > >>>> daemon to > > >>>> get the certificate and keys. The mechanics are pretty much same as > what > > >>>> you are asking for. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Harsha > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:47 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >>>> maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > Imagine a scenario like - We know we have a custom KMS and as a > Kafka > > >>>> owner > > >>>> > we want to comply to using that KMS source to load keys/certs. As > a > > >>>> Kafka > > >>>> > owner we know how to integrate with KMS but doesn't necessarily > have > > >>>> to > > >>>> > know anything about cipher suites, algorithms, and SSL/TLS > > >>>> implementation. > > >>>> > Going the Provider way requires to know lot more than we should, > > >>>> isn't it? > > >>>> > Not that we would have concern/shy-away knowing those details - > but > > >>>> if we > > >>>> > don't have to - why should we? > > >>>> > > > >>>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:23 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >>>> maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > wrote: > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Hi Harsha > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > We don't have spire (or similar) agents and we do not have > > >>>> keys/certs > > >>>> > > locally on any brokers. To elaborate more on my previous email, > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > I agree that Java security Providers are used in much broader > sense > > >>>> - to > > >>>> > > have a particular implementation of an algorithm, use specific > > >>>> cipher > > >>>> > > suites for SSL , OR in our current team's case have a > particular > > >>>> way to > > >>>> > > leverage pre-generated SSL sessions. However, the scope of our > KIP > > >>>> (486) > > >>>> > is > > >>>> > > much restricted than that. We merely intend to provide a custom > > >>>> > > keystore/truststore for our SSL connections and not really worry > > >>>> about > > >>>> > > underlying specific SSL/TLS implementation. This simplifies it > a > > >>>> lot for > > >>>> > > us to keep the concerns separate and clear. > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > I feel our approach is more complimentary such that it allows > for > > >>>> using > > >>>> > > keystores of choice while retaining the flexibility to use any > > >>>> > > underlying/available Provider for actually making the SSL call. > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > We agree with KIP-492's approach based on Providers (and Java's > > >>>> > > recommendation), but also strongly believe that our approach can > > >>>> > compliment > > >>>> > > it very effectively for reasons explained above. > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > Thanks > > >>>> > > Maulin > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:05 PM Harsha Chintalapani < > ka...@harsha.io > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > >> Hi Maulin, > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 2:04 PM, Maulin Vasavada < > > >>>> > >> maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > >> wrote: > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > Hi Harsha > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > The reason we rejected the SslProvider route is that - we > only > > >>>> needed > > >>>> > a > > >>>> > >> > custom way to load keys/certs. Not touch any policy that > existing > > >>>> > >> Providers > > >>>> > >> > govern like SunJSSE Provider. > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> We have exactly the same requirements to load certs and keys > > >>>> through > > >>>> > spire > > >>>> > >> agent. We used security.provider to do that exactly. I am not > sure > > >>>> why > > >>>> > you > > >>>> > >> would be modifying any policies provided by default SunJSSE > > >>>> provider. > > >>>> > Can > > >>>> > >> you give me an example of having custom provider that will > > >>>> override an > > >>>> > >> existing policy in SunJSSE provider. > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> As pointed out earlier, this kip > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-492%3A+Add+java+security+providers+in+Kafka+Security+config > > >>>> > >> allows > > >>>> > >> you to load security.provider through config. > > >>>> > >> Take a look at the examples I gave before > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeProvider.java > > >>>> > >> It registers KeyManagerFactory and TrustManagerFactory and > Keystore > > >>>> > >> algorithm. > > >>>> > >> Implement your custom way of loading Keystore in here > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeKeyStore.java > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> and Trust manager like here > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeTrustManager.java > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> In your Kafka client you can set the security.provider to your > > >>>> custom > > >>>> > >> implementation and with this fix > > >>>> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8191 you can set > > >>>> > >> keyManagerAlgorigthm and trustManagerAlgorithm configs. > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> All of this is in your clients and broker side and do not need > to > > >>>> touch > > >>>> > >> any > > >>>> > >> policy changes at JVM level. You'll register the providers in > the > > >>>> > priority > > >>>> > >> order and can still have SunJSSE provider and have your custom > > >>>> provider > > >>>> > to > > >>>> > >> implement the key and trust managers. > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> The ask here is different than KIP-492. We don't have any need > to > > >>>> > >> > modify/specify the algorithm parameter. Does that make sense? > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> The ask in KIP is introducing new interfaces where the KIP's > > >>>> > >> goal/motivation can be achieved through the security.provider > and > > >>>> we > > >>>> > >> worked > > >>>> > >> on similar goal without touching any Keystore or Truststore > > >>>> interfaces. > > >>>> > >> My advise is against changing or introducing new interfaces > when > > >>>> it can > > >>>> > >> work through security.provider. > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> Thanks, > > >>>> > >> Harsha > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> Thanks > > >>>> > >> > Maulin > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:48 AM Harsha Chintalapani < > > >>>> ka...@harsha.io> > > >>>> > >> > wrote: > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > In your KIP you added security. provider as rejected > alternative > > >>>> and > > >>>> > >> > specified "its not the correct way". Do you mind explaining > why > > >>>> its > > >>>> > >> not? I > > >>>> > >> > didn't find any evidence in Java docs to say so. Contrary to > your > > >>>> > >> statement > > >>>> > >> > it does say in the java docs > > >>>> > >> > " However, please note that a provider can be used to > implement > > >>>> any > > >>>> > >> > security service in Java that uses a pluggable architecture > with > > >>>> a > > >>>> > >> choice > > >>>> > >> > of implementations that fit underneath." > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > Java Security Providers have been used by other projects to > > >>>> provide > > >>>> > such > > >>>> > >> > integration . I am not sure if you looked into Spiffe > project to > > >>>> > >> > efficiently distribute certificates but here is an example of > > >>>> Java > > >>>> > >> provider > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeProvider. > > >>>> > >> > java which > > >>>> > >> > obtains certificates from local daemons. > > >>>> > >> > These integrations are being used in Tomcat, Jetty etc.. We > are > > >>>> also > > >>>> > >> using > > >>>> > >> > Security provider to do the same in our Kafka clusters. So > > >>>> unless I > > >>>> > see > > >>>> > >> > more evidence why security.provider doesn't work for you > adding > > >>>> new > > >>>> > >> > interfaces while there exists more cleaner way of achieving > the > > >>>> goals > > >>>> > of > > >>>> > >> > this KIP is unnecessary and breaks the well known security > > >>>> interfaces > > >>>> > >> > provided by Java itself. > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > Thanks, > > >>>> > >> > Harsha > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 6:54 AM, Harsha Chintalapani < > > >>>> ka...@harsha.io > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > >> > wrote: > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > Hi Maulin, > > >>>> > >> > Not sure if you looked at my previous replies. This > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > changes > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > are not required as there is already security Provider to do > > >>>> what you > > >>>> > >> are > > >>>> > >> > proposing. This KIP > > >>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > >>>> > >> > > KIP-492%3A+Add+java+security+providers+in+Kafka+Security+config > > >>>> also > > >>>> > >> > addresses easy registration of such providers. > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > Thanks, > > >>>> > >> > Harsha > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 11:31 PM, Maulin Vasavada > > >>>> > >> <maulin.vasavada@gmail. > > >>>> > >> > com> wrote: > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > Bump! Can somebody please review this? > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 1:51 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > wrote: > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > Bump! Can somebody please review this? > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>> > > >
