[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-2840?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16551085#comment-16551085
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on AIRAVATA-2840:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commit ca4d613ddb114f5502f03eaf6736104d7b4f415e in airavata's branch
refs/heads/develop from [~marcuschristie]
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=airavata.git;h=ca4d613 ]
AIRAVATA-2839 Removing validation
Changes in AIRAVATA-2840 will require GroupResourceProfiles provide
their own allocation numbers and credential tokens.
> Secure GroupResourceProfiles from being cloned and repurposed
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AIRAVATA-2840
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-2840
> Project: Airavata
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Marcus Christie
> Assignee: Marcus Christie
> Priority: Major
>
> Email to dev list:
> {quote}
> Hi All,
> I’m looking for some advice on how to secure GroupResourceProfiles. The
> problem is this: any user that has READ access to a GroupResourceProfile can
> effectively clone that GroupResourceProfile. This would allow the user to
> create a new GroupResourceProfile that uses the same login/allocation and
> this new GroupResourceProfile could have fewer restrictions or be shared with
> other users.
> Here are some solutions I’m considering:
> 1. Create a new permission type that is less privileged than READ and that
> gives access to less details. There are a few details in the
> GroupComputeResourcePreferences that are sensitive, like loginUserName,
> resourceSpecificCredentialToken and allocationProjectNumber, because these
> fields determine what account gets charged and these could be left out.
> 2. Hide the sensitive fields mentioned above from users with READ access and
> only show them to users with WRITE access.
> 3. Apply group based authorization to credential tokens and require new
> GroupResourceProfiles to have their own credential tokens, that would only be
> accessible to the user that creates the GroupResourceProfile.
> I’m open to other ideas. I’m leaning toward #2. The problem with #1 is it
> introduces another permission type (READ, WRITE and “USE”?) that will
> complicate the user experience. #3 also complicates what is required to
> create a GroupResourceProfile. One use case we have in mind is that users who
> create a GroupResourceProfile can leverage defaults defined in the
> GatewayResourceProfile and thus only need to provide an allocation project
> number and not need to add an SSH key to a compute resource account. Approach
> #3 would make that more difficult or impossible.
> I hope the above makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions.
> Thanks,
> Marcus
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
