Hi Connor,
I think this is really close but have one more thought. Uncaught exceptions
in the REST API are different from exceptions that come about when tasks or
connectors fail, and can be used for different purposes. Stack traces in
500 errors are probably only useful for the administrator of the Connect
cluster. However, if a user has tried to create a connector and sees that
it or one of its tasks has failed, a brief message about the cause of
failure might actually be pretty helpful, and if they can't get any
information on why the connector or task failed, then they're essentially
at the mercy of the Connect cluster administrator for figuring out what
caused the failure. Would it be alright to include the exception message,
but not the entire stack trace, in the response for requests to view the
status of a connector or task?
Cheers,
Chris
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:07 PM Connor Penhale <cpenh...@perforce.com>
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Apologies for the name confusion! I've been working with the my customer
> sponsor over the last few weeks, and we finally have an answer regarding
> "only exceptions or all responses." This organization is really interested
> in removing stack traces from all responses, which will expand the scope of
> this KIP a bit. I'm going to update the wiki entry, and then would it be
> reasonable to call for a vote?
>
> Thanks!
> Connor
>
> On 4/17/20, 3:53 PM, "Christopher Egerton" <chr...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Connor,
>
> That's great, but I think you may have mistaken Colin for me :)
>
> One more thing that should be addressed--the "public interfaces"
> section
> isn't just for Java interfaces, it's for any changes to any public
> part of
> Kafka that users and external developers interact with. As far as
> Connect
> is concerned, this includes (but is not limited to) the REST API and
> worker
> configuration properties, so it might be worth briefly summarizing the
> scope of your proposed changes in that section (something like "We
> plan on
> adding a new worker config named <name> that will affect the REST API
> under
> <conditions>".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:00 PM Connor Penhale <cpenh...@perforce.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I can ask the customer if they can disclose any additional
> information. I
> > provided the information around "PCI-DSS" to give the community a
> flavor of
> > the type of environment the customer was operating in. The current
> mode is
> > /not/ insecure, I would agree with this. I would be willing to agree
> that
> > my customer has particular security audit requirements that go above
> and
> > beyond what most environments would consider reasonable. Are you
> > comfortable with that language?
> >
> > " enable.rest.response.stack.traces" works great for me!
> >
> > I created a new class in the example PR because I wanted the highest
> > chance of not gunking up the works by stepping on toes in an
> important
> > class. I figured I'd be reducing risk by creating an alternative
> > implementing class. In retrospect, and now that I'm getting a
> first-hand
> > look at Kafka's community process, that is probably unnecessary.
> > Additionally, I would agree with your statement that we should
> modify the
> > existing ExceptionMapper to avoid behavior divergence in subsequent
> > releases and ensure this feature's particular scope is easy to
> maintain.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Connor
> >
> > On 4/15/20, 1:17 PM, "Colin McCabe" <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Connor,
> >
> > I still would like to hear more about whether this feature is
> required
> > for PCI-DSS or any other security certification. Nobody I talked to
> seemed
> > to think that it was-- if there are certifications that would
> require this,
> > it would be nice to know. However, I don't object to implementing
> this as
> > long as we don't imply that the current mode is insecure.
> >
> > What do you think about using
> "enable.rest.response.stack.traces" as
> > the config name? It seems like that makes it clearer that it's a
> boolean
> > value.
> >
> > It's not really necessary to describe the internal
> implementation in
> > the KIP, but since you mentioned it, it's probably worth considering
> using
> > the current ExceptionMapper class with a different configuration
> rather
> > than creating a new one.
> >
> > best,
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, at 09:04, Connor Penhale wrote:
> > > Hi Chris!
> > >
> > > RE: SSL, indeed, the issue is not that the information is not
> > > encrypted, but that there is no authorization layer.
> > >
> > > I'll be sure to edit the KIP as we continue discussion!
> > >
> > > RE: the 200 response you highlighted, great catch! I'll work
> with my
> > > customer and get back to you on their audit team's intention!
> I'm
> > > fairly certain I know the answer, but I need to be sure before
> I
> > speak
> > > for them.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Connor
> > >
> > > On 4/8/20, 11:27 PM, "Christopher Egerton" <
> chr...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Connor,
> > >
> > > Just a few more remarks!
> > >
> > > I noticed that you said "Kafka Connect was passing these
> > exceptions without
> > > authentication." For what it's worth, the Connect REST API
> can
> > be secured
> > > with TLS out-of-the-box by configuring the worker with the
> > various ssl.*
> > > properties, but that doesn't provide any kind of
> authorization
> > layer to
> > > provide levels of security depending who the user is. Just
> > pointing out in
> > > case this helps with your use case.
> > >
> > > As far as editing the KIP based on discussion goes--it's
> not only
> > > acceptable, it's expected :) Ideally, the KIP should be
> kept
> > up-to-date to
> > > the point where, were it to be accepted at any moment, it
> would
> > accurately
> > > reflect the changes that would then be made to Kafka. This
> can
> > be relaxed
> > > if there's rapid iteration or items that are still up for
> > discussion, but
> > > as soon as things settle down it should be updated.
> > >
> > > As far as item 4 goes, my question was about exceptions
> that
> > aren't handled
> > > by the ExceptionMapper, but which are returned as part of
> the
> > response body
> > > when querying the status of a connector or task that has
> failed
> > by querying
> > > the /connectors/{name}/status or
> > /connectors/{name}/tasks/{taskId}/status
> > > endpoints. Even if the request is successful and results
> in an
> > HTTP 200
> > > response, the body might contain a stack trace if the
> connector
> > or any of
> > > its tasks have failed.
> > >
> > > For example, I ran an instance of the FileStreamSource
> connector
> > named
> > > "file-source" locally and instructed it to consume from a
> file
> > that it
> > > lacked permissions to read. When I queried the status of
> that
> > connector by
> > > issuing a request to /connectors/file-source/status, I got
> back
> > the
> > > following response:
> > >
> > > {
> > > "name": "file-source",
> > > "connector": {
> > > "state": "RUNNING",
> > > "worker_id": "192.168.86.21:8083"
> > > },
> > > "tasks": [
> > > {
> > > "id": 0,
> > > "state": "FAILED",
> > > "worker_id": "192.168.86.21:8083",
> > > "trace":
> "org.apache.kafka.connect.errors.ConnectException:
> > > java.nio.file.AccessDeniedException: test.txt\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.kafka.connect.file.FileStreamSourceTask.poll(FileStreamSourceTask.java:116)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSourceTask.poll(WorkerSourceTask.java:265)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSourceTask.execute(WorkerSourceTask.java:232)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerTask.doRun(WorkerTask.java:177)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerTask.run(WorkerTask.java:227)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:511)\n\tat
> > >
> java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:266)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)\n\tat
> > > java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)\nCaused by:
> > > java.nio.file.AccessDeniedException: test.txt\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> sun.nio.fs.UnixException.translateToIOException(UnixException.java:84)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> sun.nio.fs.UnixException.rethrowAsIOException(UnixException.java:102)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> sun.nio.fs.UnixException.rethrowAsIOException(UnixException.java:107)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> sun.nio.fs.UnixFileSystemProvider.newByteChannel(UnixFileSystemProvider.java:214)\n\tat
> > > java.nio.file.Files.newByteChannel(Files.java:361)\n\tat
> > > java.nio.file.Files.newByteChannel(Files.java:407)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> java.nio.file.spi.FileSystemProvider.newInputStream(FileSystemProvider.java:384)\n\tat
> > > java.nio.file.Files.newInputStream(Files.java:152)\n\tat
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.kafka.connect.file.FileStreamSourceTask.poll(FileStreamSourceTask.java:82)\n\t...
> > > 9 more\n"
> > > }
> > > ],
> > > "type": "source"
> > > }
> > >
> > > Note the "trace" field in the first element of the "tasks"
> field
> > of the
> > > response: this was the stack trace for the exception that
> caused
> > the task
> > > to fail during execution, which has nothing to do with the
> > success or
> > > failure of the REST request I issued to the
> > /connectors/file-source/status
> > > endpoint.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if you wanted to include these kinds of
> stack
> > traces as
> > > part of the KIP, as opposed to uncaught exceptions that
> result
> > in a 500
> > > error from the REST API.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:51 AM Connor Penhale <
> > cpenh...@perforce.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All!
> > > >
> > > > Is there any additional feedback that the community can
> provide
> > > me on the
> > > > KIP? Has anyone else run into requirements like this, or
> maybe
> > my
> > > customer
> > > > is the only one :)? If the scope looks good, is it time
> to
> > call a
> > > vote? Or
> > > > should I start porting my 2.0 code to 2.6 to show
> examples?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Connor
> > > >
> > > > On 4/6/20, 9:03 AM, "Connor Penhale" <
> cpenh...@perforce.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Colin,
> > > >
> > > > We did not find a specific security vulnerability.
> Our
> > > customer had
> > > > auditors in their environment, and they identified Kafka
> > Connect
> > > as out of
> > > > compliance with their particular standards, something
> that
> > > happens all the
> > > > time for REST-based applications. What these security
> auditors
> > > expected
> > > > Kafka Connect to be able to do was tune the response. As
> Kafka
> > > Connect
> > > > could not provide this functionality, I'm proposing this
> KIP.
> > > Does that
> > > > make sense? Should I still go through the process of a
> security
> > > disclosure?
> > > >
> > > > Our particular need was around suppressing
> exceptions in
> > the
> > > "public"
> > > > response, as Kafka Connect was passing these exceptions
> without
> > > > authentication, they became a public endpoint upon which
> the
> > > auditors could
> > > > fuzz, and show it being out of compliance. Keeping these
> > > exceptions in the
> > > > logs, as proposed in the KIP, makes sense to me as an
> operator.
> > > >
> > > > I only mention PCI-DSS as this was the kind of
> environment
> > my
> > > customer
> > > > had that was making the request for being able to tune
> the
> > > response.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Connor
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Connor Penhale | Enterprise Architect, OpenLogic (
> > > > https://openlogic.com/)
> > > > Perforce (https://www.perforce.com/)
> > > > Support: +1 866.399.6736
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/3/20, 3:24 PM, "Colin McCabe" <
> cmcc...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also, if you do find a security issue, the
> process to
> > > follow is
> > > > here: https://kafka.apache.org/project-security.html .
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, at 14:20, Colin McCabe
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Connor,
> > > > >
> > > > > If we are putting security-sensitive
> information into
> > > REST
> > > > responses,
> > > > > that is a bug that needs to be fixed, not
> worked
> > around
> > > with a
> > > > > configuration option. Do you have an example
> of
> > > > security-sensitive
> > > > > information appearing in the exception text?
> Why do
> > > you feel
> > > > that
> > > > > PCI-DSS requires this change?
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, the same concern applies to log
> messages.
> > > We do not
> > > > log
> > > > > sensitive information such as passwords to the
> log4j
> > > output. If
> > > > you
> > > > > know of that happening somewhere, please file
> a bug
> > so
> > > it can be
> > > > fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > best,
> > > > > Colin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, at 12:56, Connor Penhale
> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Chris!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your feedback! I'll number my
> responses
> > to
> > > your
> > > > questions / thoughts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Apologies on that lack of clarity! I
> settled on
> > > "Detailed
> > > > exception
> > > > > > information has been suppressed. Please see
> logs."
> > > > > > (
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8355/files#diff-64c265986e7bbe40cdd79f831e961907R34
> > ).
> > > > Should I update the KIP to reflect what I've already
> thought
> > > about? It's my
> > > > first one, not sure what the process should be for
> editing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. I was unaware of the REST extensions!
> I'll see
> > if
> > > I can
> > > > implement
> > > > > > the same behavior as a REST extension. I
> agree that
> > > the KIP
> > > > still has
> > > > > > merit, regardless of the feasibility of the
> > > extension, but in
> > > > regards
> > > > > > to the 5th thought, this might make that
> decision
> > > easier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. I agree with your suggestion here.
> Absolutely
> > > ready to take
> > > > the
> > > > > > community feedback on what makes sense here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. I should note that while I emphasized
> uncaught
> > > exceptions,
> > > > I mean
> > > > > > all exceptions handled by the
> ExceptionMapper,
> > > including
> > > > > > ConnectRestExceptions. An example of this is
> here:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8355/files#diff-64c265986e7bbe40cdd79f831e961907R46
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. I didn't know how specific I should get
> if I had
> > > already
> > > > taken a
> > > > > > stab at implementing! I'm happy to edit this
> in
> > > whatever way
> > > > we want to
> > > > > > go about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me know if anyone has any other
> questions or
> > > feedback!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Connor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/2/20, 3:58 PM, "Christopher Egerton"
> > > <chr...@confluent.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Connor,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great stuff! I generally like being able
> to see
> > > the stack
> > > > trace of an
> > > > > > exception directly via the REST API but
> can
> > > definitely
> > > > understand the
> > > > > > security concerns here. I've got a few
> > > questions/remarks
> > > > about the KIP and
> > > > > > would be interested in your thoughts:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. The KIP mentions a
> > > SUPRESSED_EXCEPTION_MESSAGE, but
> > > > doesn't actually
> > > > > > outline what this message would actually
> be.
> > It'd
> > > be great
> > > > to see the
> > > > > > actual message in the KIP since people
> may have
> > > thoughts
> > > > on what it should
> > > > > > be and want to comment on it as part of
> this
> > > discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. In the "Rejected Alternatives"
> section, an
> > > Nginx proxy
> > > > is
> > > > > > mentioned as
> > > > > > one possible way to filter out stack
> traces
> > from
> > > the REST
> > > > API. It
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > like a Connect REST extension (
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://kafka.apache.org/24/javadoc/index.html?org/apache/kafka/connect/rest/ConnectRestExtension.html
> > > > )
> > > > > > would be a better alternative than an
> Nginx
> > > proxy; had you
> > > > > > considered
> > > > > > utilizing one? I still think this KIP is
> > > worthwhile and a
> > > > REST
> > > > > > extension
> > > > > > shouldn't be necessary in order to lock
> down
> > the
> > > REST API
> > > > this way,
> > > > > > but it
> > > > > > might be worth calling out as an
> alternative
> > and
> > > perhaps
> > > > even a
> > > > > > workaround
> > > > > > in cases where users are stuck on a given
> > version
> > > of
> > > > Connect and
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > upgrade to 2.6 (or whichever version
> this KIP
> > > lands on)
> > > > any time
> > > > > > soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. The
> > > "error.rest.response.message.detail.enabled"
> > > > property is a bit of a
> > > > > > mouthful; it'd be great if we could come
> up
> > with
> > > something
> > > > more succinct.
> > > > > > What do you think about something like
> > > > "rest.response.stack.traces"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. The KIP is targeted at stack traces
> for
> > > uncaught
> > > > exceptions, but it's
> > > > > > also possible that stack traces get
> exposed in
> > > the REST
> > > > API when querying
> > > > > > the status of a connector or one of its
> tasks.
> > > Was this
> > > > intentional? If so,
> > > > > > it'd be great to call out why that kind
> of
> > > filtering is
> > > > not required in the
> > > > > > "Rejected Alternatives" section, and if
> not,
> > it's
> > > probably
> > > > not too late to
> > > > > > consider modifying the KIP to cover
> those cases
> > > as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. The KIP mentions creating a new,
> separate
> > > exception
> > > > mapper class. This
> > > > > > seems like more of an implementation
> detail and
> > > something
> > > > that can be
> > > > > > decided on during code review; unless
> it's
> > > critical to the
> > > > functionality
> > > > > > that the KIP aims to accomplish, I'd
> suggest
> > > leaving that
> > > > part out since it
> > > > > > shouldn't affect the impact on users of
> the
> > > Connect
> > > > framework.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, looking forward to
> seeing
> > > this happen!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:01 AM Connor
> Penhale
> > <
> > > > cpenh...@perforce.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello All!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’ve created the following KIP:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-587:+Suppress+detailed+responses+for+handled+exceptions+in+security-sensitive+environments
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PR that originated this
> discussion, is
> > here:
> > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8355
> > It
> > > is based
> > > > on 2.0,
> > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > would be working on Kafka Connect in
> 2.6 to
> > get
> > > this
> > > > behavior
> > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > the community’s preference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking forward to working with
> everyone!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Connor
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Connor Penhale | Enterprise Architect,
> > OpenLogic
> > > > > > (https://openlogic.com/)
> > > > > > > Perforce (https://www.perforce.com/)
> > > > > > > Support: +1 866.399.6736
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This e-mail may contain information
> that is
> > > privileged or
> > > > > > confidential. If
> > > > > > > you are not the intended recipient,
> please
> > > delete the
> > > > e-mail and
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from
> outside of
> > the
> > > > organization. Do
> > > > > > not click on links or open attachments
> unless you
> > > recognize
> > > > the sender
> > > > > > and know the content is safe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This e-mail may contain information that is
> > > privileged or
> > > > confidential.
> > > > > > If you are not the intended recipient, please
> > delete
> > > the
> > > > e-mail and any
> > > > > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
> the
> > > organization.
> > > > Do not click on links or open attachments unless you
> recognize
> > > the sender
> > > > and know the content is safe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This e-mail may contain information that is
> privileged or
> > > > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please
> > > delete the
> > > > e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> > > confidential. If
> > > > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the
> e-mail
> > and
> > > any
> > > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the
> organization.
> > Do
> > > not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> > sender
> > > and know the content is safe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> > confidential.
> > > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the
> e-mail and
> > any
> > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
> Do
> > not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and
> > know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential. If
> > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
