Hi Justin,

By configuration do you mean the sensor related configurations only? Are
you limiting the scope of this activity to the management-UI or also
Alert-UI as well? For example, defining different roles (pre-defined
or customizable) and the fine-grained integration with Ranger?

Cheers,
Ali

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:16 AM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the second copy of this email, I forgot the  [DISCUSS] tag on the
> original.  Otherwise, this has the same content.
>
> Right now, our various configs can be modified by anyone with access to the
> various scripts. I'd like to start a discussion around building out some
> authorization to be able to add some more fine grained controls around
> this.
>
> Other projects have some variants on how to accomplish this.  Typically,
> this follows a pattern of calling out to a interface/class that takes in
> the operation and context (user and other info) and returns true/false if
> something is authorized.
>
> In my mind, what we would need out of this is
>
>    - Ability to apply fine grained permissions
>    - The various scripts and UI should flow this authorization framework.
>    I believe most (if not all) of our configuration flows through
>    ConfigurationsUtils.  Anything that doesn't should either be hooked in
> or
>    refactored to flow through the same codepaths.
>    - Pluggability. We shouldn't force only one authorizer.
>
> In particular, I'm proposing we use Apache Ranger
> <https://ranger.apache.org/> as a supported authorization framework,
> implementing it alongside the authorization framework to validate what we
> build. In my mind, the main catch with Ranger is that, based on my
> understanding, we won't be able to restrict users with direct access to
> ZooKeeper via it's CLI (e.g. Ranger can't mirror it's ACLs down into ZK's
> ACLs).  I believe this is a reasonable restriction, especially as the
> management UI gets improved to handle more of the configuration burden and
> the number of users with access to ZK CLI begins to decrease.  Users can
> still add ZK ACLs separately to enforce that access there.
>
> For anyone not familiar with Ranger, essentially you build a plugin that
> hooks into the existing component's authorization framework (e.g. for
> Storm, the plugin runs through the IAuthorizer
> <
> https://storm.apache.org/releases/1.2.2/javadocs/org/apache/storm/security/auth/IAuthorizer.html
> >
> interface,
> for Yarn it runs through YarnAuthorizationProvider
> <
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-common/apidocs/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/security/YarnAuthorizationProvider.html
> >).
> Additionally, Ranger provides auditing capabilities for this authorization
> and has plugins for a good portion of our stack already (so users can
> already setup ACLs on HDFS, Storm, etc.). Checkout the Ranger Github
> <https://github.com/apache/ranger> for a list of the plugins they have
> built in.
>
> What this means for Metron is building out an authorization setup similar
> to Storm or Yarn or whatever we choose. We'll want this anyway, to allow
> our solution to be pluggable.  At that point, we build an implementation of
> the authorizer compatible with Ranger along with the plugin.
>
> I think this could probably be a fairly small feature branch, which I'm
> suggesting primarily to do the Ranger implementation alongside the general
> authorization work to validate what's being built.  I think the main
> tasking would be something similar to:
>
>    - Build out pluggable authorization for our configs.
>    - This includes testing (and possibly doing something similar to Storm,
>    where they have a some testing IAuthorizers, e.g. NoopAuthorizer,
>    DenyAuthorizer, etc.)
>    - Ensure that all the code paths consistently flow through this
>    Authorization.
>    - Build a Ranger compatible version of this.
>    - Define the Ranger plugin for this.
>    - Make sure auditing is defined.
>    - Integration testing (particularly with Kerberos. After all, if they
>    want to do authorization and auditing, they're almost certainly using
>    Kerberos).
>
> Is there anything missing that we'd need or want for this?  Are there any
> other concerns we'd want to make sure are taken care of?
>


-- 
A.Nazemian

Reply via email to