On 07/19/2017 09:27 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 07/19/2017 12:18 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>> On 18/07/17 10:55, Lance Bragstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Would Keystone folks be happy to allow persistent credentials once
>>>>     we have a way to hand out only the minimum required privileges?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I'm understanding correctly, this would make application
>>>> credentials dependent on several cycles of policy work. Right?
>>>
>>> I think having the ability to communicate deprecations though
>>> oslo.policy would help here. We could use it to move towards better
>>> default roles, which requires being able to set minimum privileges.
>>>
>>> Using the current workflow requires operators to define the minimum
>>> privileges for whatever is using the application credential, and
>>> work that into their policy. Is that the intended workflow that we
>>> want to put on the users and operators of application credentials?
>>
>> The plan is to add an authorisation mechanism that is user-controlled
>> and independent of the (operator-controlled) policy. The beginnings
>> of this were included in earlier drafts of the spec, but were removed
>> in patch set 19 in favour of leaving them for a future spec:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/450415/18..19/specs/keystone/pike/application-credentials.rst
>
>
> Yes - that's right - and I expect to start work on that again as soon
> as this next keystoneauth release with version discovery is out the door.
>
> It turns out there are different POVs on this topic, and it's VERY
> important to be clear which one we're talking about at any given point
> in time. A bunch of the confusion just in getting as far as we've
> gotten so far came from folks saying words like "policy" or "trusts"
> or "ACLs" or "RBAC" - but not clarifying which group of cloud users
> they were discussing and from what context.
>
> The problem that Zane and I are are discussing and advocating for are
> for UNPRIVILEDGED users who neither deploy nor operate the cloud but
> who use the cloud to run applications.
>
> Unfortunately, neither the current policy system nor trusts are useful
> in any way shape or form for those humans. Policy and trusts are tools
> for cloud operators to take a certain set of actions.
>
> Similarly, the concern from the folks who are not in favor of
> project-lifecycled application credentials is the one that Zane
> outlined - that there will be $someone with access to those
> credentials after a User change event, and thus $security will be
> compromised.
>
> There is a balance that can and must be found. The use case Zane and I
> are talking about is ESSENTIAL, and literally ever single human who is
> a actually using OpenStack to run applications needs it. Needed it
> last year in fact, and they are, in fact doing things like writing
> ssh-agent like daemons in which they can store their corporate LDAP
> credentials so that their automation will work because we're not
> giving them a workable option.
>
> That said, the concerns about not letting a thing out the door that is
> insecure by design like PHP4's globally scoped URL variables is also
> super important.
>
> So we need to find a design that meets both goals.
>
> I have thoughts on the topic, but have been holding off until
> version-discovery is out the door. My hunch is that, like application
> credentials, we're not going to make significant headway without
> getting humans in the room - because the topic is WAY too fraught with
> peril.
>
> I propose we set aside time at the PTG to dig in to this. Between Zane
> and I and the Keystone core team I have confidence we can find a way out.

Done. I've added this thread to keystone's planning etherpad under
cross-project things we need to talk about [0]. Feel free to elaborate
and fill in context as you see fit. I'll make sure the content makes
it's way into a dedicated etherpad before we have that discussion
(usually as I go through each topic and plan the schedule).


[0] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-queens-ptg

>
> Monty
>
> PS. It will not help to solve limited-scope before we solve this.
> Limited scope is an end-user opt-in action and having it does not
> remove the concerns that have been expressed.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to