Re: Pluggable secret key backend
Personally, I like the simplicity and elegance of a single SECRET_KEYS setting. It's also a good way to raise awareness that rotation is A Good Thing to be doing anyways. In any case, I second all of those who've already endorsed this idea. If I can help, let me know. Tobias On Sun, Nov 18, 2018, 6:25 PM Adam Johnson Very good point. I'd prefer a second setting though, named like > OLD_SECRET_KEYS or VERIFICATION_SECRET_KEYS. If we're going to add a new > setting, we might as well not force users who aren't rotating their keys to > the new one, especially if they are semantically different. > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 18:32, Aymeric Augustin < > aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > >> Good point, I can think of at least two apps of mine that would break. >> Transitioning to a new setting makes more sense. >> >> -- >> Aymeric. >> >> >> >> > On 11 Nov 2018, at 18:58, Tom Forbes wrote: >> > >> > Is it going to be easy to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY to support >> sequences like that? I’d imagine a lot of third party packages that expect >> SECRET_KEY to be a string would break in weird ways (thanks to both strings >> and tuples of strings being iterables that yield strings). >> > >> > Here’s a quick search on GitHub: >> https://github.com/search?q=%22settings.SECRET_KEY%22&type=Code >> > >> > To ease the backward compatibility concerns we could use SECRET_KEYS, >> then make SECRET_KEY (if it is not explicitly defined) map to >> SECRET_KEYS[0]? Third party packages using would not necessarily work with >> the backwards verification but they would at least not break and continue >> to work as expected. >> > >> > Tom >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 11 November 2018 at 07:38:15, Aymeric Augustin ( >> aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org) wrote: >> > >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I think this is a great idea. >> >> >> >> As suggested by others, an even better default implementation would be: >> >> >> >> class SecretKeysBackend: >> >> >> >> def get_signing_key(self): >> >> if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)): >> >> return settings.SECRET_KEY[0] >> >> else: >> >> return settings.SECRET_KEY >> >> >> >> def get_verification_keys(self): >> >> if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)): >> >> return settings.SECRET_KEY >> >> else: >> >> return [settings.SECRET_KEY] >> >> >> >> Once Django is updated to take advantage of this feature, hat would >> make key rotation practical for every Django user! >> >> >> >> (And it seems easier to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY than to >> introduce a SECRET_KEYS settings.) >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Aymeric. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 10 Nov 2018, at 11:12, Andreas Pelme wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form >> wizards and >> >>> other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing >> SECRET_KEY means >> >>> that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected >> in weird >> >>> ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? >> Where did my >> >>> form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). >> This is >> >>> desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be >> taken. >> >>> >> >>> There are other situations when it would be nice to change the >> SECRET_KEY when >> >>> this sudden invalidation is not desirable: >> >>> >> >>> - When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the >> production >> >>> system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer >> could >> >>> potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a >> backdoor with >> >>> full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those >> cases. >> >>> >> >>> - Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in >> the >> >>> future. >> >>> >> >>> The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation >> impractical. If >> >>> you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice >> time to >> >>> change the SECRET_KEY. >> >>> >> >>> A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key >> while >> >>> still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid >> at the same >> >>> time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where >> signatures >> >>> from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing >> problems >> >>> with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard >> progress. >> >>> >> >>> You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, >> message >> >>> storage backend and password reset token generator but that is >> cumbersome and >> >>> does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django >> signing >> >>> APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret. >> >>> >> >>> I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend >> >>>
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
Very good point. I'd prefer a second setting though, named like OLD_SECRET_KEYS or VERIFICATION_SECRET_KEYS. If we're going to add a new setting, we might as well not force users who aren't rotating their keys to the new one, especially if they are semantically different. On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 18:32, Aymeric Augustin < aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > Good point, I can think of at least two apps of mine that would break. > Transitioning to a new setting makes more sense. > > -- > Aymeric. > > > > > On 11 Nov 2018, at 18:58, Tom Forbes wrote: > > > > Is it going to be easy to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY to support > sequences like that? I’d imagine a lot of third party packages that expect > SECRET_KEY to be a string would break in weird ways (thanks to both strings > and tuples of strings being iterables that yield strings). > > > > Here’s a quick search on GitHub: > https://github.com/search?q=%22settings.SECRET_KEY%22&type=Code > > > > To ease the backward compatibility concerns we could use SECRET_KEYS, > then make SECRET_KEY (if it is not explicitly defined) map to > SECRET_KEYS[0]? Third party packages using would not necessarily work with > the backwards verification but they would at least not break and continue > to work as expected. > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 November 2018 at 07:38:15, Aymeric Augustin ( > aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org) wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I think this is a great idea. > >> > >> As suggested by others, an even better default implementation would be: > >> > >> class SecretKeysBackend: > >> > >> def get_signing_key(self): > >> if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)): > >> return settings.SECRET_KEY[0] > >> else: > >> return settings.SECRET_KEY > >> > >> def get_verification_keys(self): > >> if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)): > >> return settings.SECRET_KEY > >> else: > >> return [settings.SECRET_KEY] > >> > >> Once Django is updated to take advantage of this feature, hat would > make key rotation practical for every Django user! > >> > >> (And it seems easier to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY than to > introduce a SECRET_KEYS settings.) > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> -- > >> Aymeric. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 10 Nov 2018, at 11:12, Andreas Pelme wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form > wizards and > >>> other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing > SECRET_KEY means > >>> that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected > in weird > >>> ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? Where > did my > >>> form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). This > is > >>> desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be > taken. > >>> > >>> There are other situations when it would be nice to change the > SECRET_KEY when > >>> this sudden invalidation is not desirable: > >>> > >>> - When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the > production > >>> system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer > could > >>> potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a > backdoor with > >>> full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those cases. > >>> > >>> - Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in > the > >>> future. > >>> > >>> The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation > impractical. If > >>> you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice time > to > >>> change the SECRET_KEY. > >>> > >>> A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key > while > >>> still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid at > the same > >>> time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where > signatures > >>> from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing > problems > >>> with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard > progress. > >>> > >>> You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, > message > >>> storage backend and password reset token generator but that is > cumbersome and > >>> does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django > signing > >>> APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret. > >>> > >>> I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend > >>> (settings.SECRET_KEY_BACKEND maybe?) with an API something like: > >>> > >>> class SecretKeyBackend: > >>> def get_signing_key(self): … > >>> def get_verification_keys(self): ... > >>> > >>> The default (and backward compatible) backend would then be > implemented as > >>> something like: > >>> > >>> class SecretKeySettingsBackend: > >>> def get_signing_key(self): > >>>return settings.SECRET_KEY > >>> def get_verification_keys(self): > >>>return [s
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
Good point, I can think of at least two apps of mine that would break.
Transitioning to a new setting makes more sense.
--
Aymeric.
> On 11 Nov 2018, at 18:58, Tom Forbes wrote:
>
> Is it going to be easy to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY to support
> sequences like that? I’d imagine a lot of third party packages that expect
> SECRET_KEY to be a string would break in weird ways (thanks to both strings
> and tuples of strings being iterables that yield strings).
>
> Here’s a quick search on GitHub:
> https://github.com/search?q=%22settings.SECRET_KEY%22&type=Code
>
> To ease the backward compatibility concerns we could use SECRET_KEYS, then
> make SECRET_KEY (if it is not explicitly defined) map to SECRET_KEYS[0]?
> Third party packages using would not necessarily work with the backwards
> verification but they would at least not break and continue to work as
> expected.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 November 2018 at 07:38:15, Aymeric Augustin
> (aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org) wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think this is a great idea.
>>
>> As suggested by others, an even better default implementation would be:
>>
>> class SecretKeysBackend:
>>
>> def get_signing_key(self):
>> if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)):
>> return settings.SECRET_KEY[0]
>> else:
>> return settings.SECRET_KEY
>>
>> def get_verification_keys(self):
>> if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)):
>> return settings.SECRET_KEY
>> else:
>> return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
>>
>> Once Django is updated to take advantage of this feature, hat would make key
>> rotation practical for every Django user!
>>
>> (And it seems easier to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY than to introduce
>> a SECRET_KEYS settings.)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --
>> Aymeric.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Nov 2018, at 11:12, Andreas Pelme wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form wizards
>>> and
>>> other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing SECRET_KEY
>>> means
>>> that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected in
>>> weird
>>> ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? Where did
>>> my
>>> form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). This is
>>> desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be taken.
>>>
>>> There are other situations when it would be nice to change the SECRET_KEY
>>> when
>>> this sudden invalidation is not desirable:
>>>
>>> - When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the production
>>> system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer could
>>> potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a backdoor
>>> with
>>> full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those cases.
>>>
>>> - Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in the
>>> future.
>>>
>>> The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation
>>> impractical. If
>>> you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice time to
>>> change the SECRET_KEY.
>>>
>>> A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key while
>>> still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid at the
>>> same
>>> time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where signatures
>>> from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing problems
>>> with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard progress.
>>>
>>> You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, message
>>> storage backend and password reset token generator but that is cumbersome
>>> and
>>> does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django
>>> signing
>>> APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret.
>>>
>>> I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend
>>> (settings.SECRET_KEY_BACKEND maybe?) with an API something like:
>>>
>>> class SecretKeyBackend:
>>> def get_signing_key(self): …
>>> def get_verification_keys(self): ...
>>>
>>> The default (and backward compatible) backend would then be implemented as
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> class SecretKeySettingsBackend:
>>> def get_signing_key(self):
>>>return settings.SECRET_KEY
>>> def get_verification_keys(self):
>>>return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
>>>
>>> django.core.signing.Signer.{sign,unsign} would need to be updated to use
>>> this
>>> backend instead of directly using settings.SECRET_KEY.
>>>
>>> That would solve the problem project wide and work across any third party
>>> application that uses django.core.signing directly.
>>>
>>> This would open the door for third party secrets backend packages that
>>> retrieves keys from systems such as Hashicorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager,
>>> Google Cloud KMS, Docker Secrets etc.
>>>
>>> Hav
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
Is it going to be easy to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY to support
sequences like that? I’d imagine a lot of third party packages that expect
SECRET_KEY to be a string would break in weird ways (thanks to both strings
and tuples of strings being iterables that yield strings).
Here’s a quick search on GitHub:
https://github.com/search?q=%22settings.SECRET_KEY%22&type=Code
To ease the backward compatibility concerns we could use SECRET_KEYS, then
make SECRET_KEY (if it is not explicitly defined) map to SECRET_KEYS[0]?
Third party packages using would not necessarily work with the backwards
verification but they would at least not break and continue to work as
expected.
Tom
On 11 November 2018 at 07:38:15, Aymeric Augustin (
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org) wrote:
Hello,
I think this is a great idea.
As suggested by others, an even better default implementation would be:
class SecretKeysBackend:
def get_signing_key(self):
if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)):
return settings.SECRET_KEY[0]
else:
return settings.SECRET_KEY
def get_verification_keys(self):
if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)):
return settings.SECRET_KEY
else:
return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
Once Django is updated to take advantage of this feature, hat would make
key rotation practical for every Django user!
(And it seems easier to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY than to
introduce a SECRET_KEYS settings.)
Best regards,
--
Aymeric.
On 10 Nov 2018, at 11:12, Andreas Pelme wrote:
Hi,
settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form wizards
and
other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing SECRET_KEY
means
that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected in
weird
ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? Where did
my
form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). This is
desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be taken.
There are other situations when it would be nice to change the SECRET_KEY
when
this sudden invalidation is not desirable:
- When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the production
system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer could
potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a backdoor
with
full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those cases.
- Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in the
future.
The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation
impractical. If
you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice time to
change the SECRET_KEY.
A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key while
still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid at the
same
time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where signatures
from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing problems
with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard progress.
You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, message
storage backend and password reset token generator but that is cumbersome
and
does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django
signing
APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret.
I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend
(settings.SECRET_KEY_BACKEND maybe?) with an API something like:
class SecretKeyBackend:
def get_signing_key(self): …
def get_verification_keys(self): ...
The default (and backward compatible) backend would then be implemented as
something like:
class SecretKeySettingsBackend:
def get_signing_key(self):
return settings.SECRET_KEY
def get_verification_keys(self):
return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
django.core.signing.Signer.{sign,unsign} would need to be updated to use
this
backend instead of directly using settings.SECRET_KEY.
That would solve the problem project wide and work across any third party
application that uses django.core.signing directly.
This would open the door for third party secrets backend packages that
retrieves keys from systems such as Hashicorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager,
Google Cloud KMS, Docker Secrets etc.
Having a method that retrieves the key would allow changes to secret key
during
run time instead of relying on a hard coded setting would allow the key to
change without restarting the server process.
Would something like this be worth pursuing? Could it be designed in som
other
way? I could not find any previous discussion/tickets on this and thought it
would be a good idea to discuss it here before opening a ticket or making an
attempt at a PR. :)
Cheers,
Andreas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop recei
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
Hello,
I think this is a great idea.
As suggested by others, an even better default implementation would be:
class SecretKeysBackend:
def get_signing_key(self):
if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)):
return settings.SECRET_KEY[0]
else:
return settings.SECRET_KEY
def get_verification_keys(self):
if isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, (list, tuple)):
return settings.SECRET_KEY
else:
return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
Once Django is updated to take advantage of this feature, hat would make key
rotation practical for every Django user!
(And it seems easier to adjust the semantics of SECRET_KEY than to introduce a
SECRET_KEYS settings.)
Best regards,
--
Aymeric.
> On 10 Nov 2018, at 11:12, Andreas Pelme wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form wizards
> and
> other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing SECRET_KEY means
> that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected in weird
> ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? Where did my
> form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). This is
> desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be taken.
>
> There are other situations when it would be nice to change the SECRET_KEY when
> this sudden invalidation is not desirable:
>
> - When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the production
> system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer could
> potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a backdoor with
> full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those cases.
>
> - Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in the
> future.
>
> The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation impractical.
> If
> you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice time to
> change the SECRET_KEY.
>
> A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key while
> still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid at the
> same
> time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where signatures
> from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing problems
> with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard progress.
>
> You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, message
> storage backend and password reset token generator but that is cumbersome and
> does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django signing
> APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret.
>
> I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend
> (settings.SECRET_KEY_BACKEND maybe?) with an API something like:
>
> class SecretKeyBackend:
> def get_signing_key(self): …
> def get_verification_keys(self): ...
>
> The default (and backward compatible) backend would then be implemented as
> something like:
>
> class SecretKeySettingsBackend:
> def get_signing_key(self):
>return settings.SECRET_KEY
> def get_verification_keys(self):
>return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
>
> django.core.signing.Signer.{sign,unsign} would need to be updated to use this
> backend instead of directly using settings.SECRET_KEY.
>
> That would solve the problem project wide and work across any third party
> application that uses django.core.signing directly.
>
> This would open the door for third party secrets backend packages that
> retrieves keys from systems such as Hashicorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager,
> Google Cloud KMS, Docker Secrets etc.
>
> Having a method that retrieves the key would allow changes to secret key
> during
> run time instead of relying on a hard coded setting would allow the key to
> change without restarting the server process.
>
> Would something like this be worth pursuing? Could it be designed in som other
> way? I could not find any previous discussion/tickets on this and thought it
> would be a good idea to discuss it here before opening a ticket or making an
> attempt at a PR. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andreas
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20D8A2BD-BC9C-4F02-9038-044687165DE9%40pelme.se.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from thi
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
Maybe a LoFi way to accomplish this is just to make sure that the SECRET_KEY is cast to bytes() before use. That way, a non-bytes object placed there during settings will be asked to convert it to bytes before use. I use the same trick with an internal module that retrieves database passwords from a web service. For cx_Oracle, I only had to implement __str__, but for PostgreSQL, MySQL, and pyodbc to SQL Server I eventually I collected many other string methods to be duck typed as a string. The same trick might work today with SECRET_KEY, depending on how it is used. If anyone ever does a check that isinstance(settings.SECRET_KEY, bytes), then we'd have problems, but if Django has the discipline to iterate it, get its length, and cast it to bytes before use, then it would be OK. On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 9:36 AM Andreas Pelme wrote: > On 10 Nov 2018, at 13:29, Adam Johnson wrote: > > > > Hi Andreas > > > > I like your proposal, moving to a backend is an elegant way of solving > both the immediate problem and opening up the other possibilities you > mentioned. > > Thanks Adam, I am glad you like the proposal. :) > > > I think it would also be nice to have an "out of the box" way of > rotating the key, without needing to implement a custom backend. Perhaps a > second setting OLD_SECRET_KEYS that may contain a list of old keys that are > returned for verification too? Or we could allow SECRET_KEY to be a > list/tuple, and if so, sign with the first and verify with all of them. > > Agreed, I will add something like that then! :) > > Cheers, > Andreas > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/A16A11DF-1439-46EF-BF0D-85C483F53608%40pelme.se > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFzonYbcFn2h0-g8nk9Bj1fgprUU0AFLxph9L_1H%2B0KEMLZ1%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
On 10 Nov 2018, at 13:29, Adam Johnson wrote: > > Hi Andreas > > I like your proposal, moving to a backend is an elegant way of solving both > the immediate problem and opening up the other possibilities you mentioned. Thanks Adam, I am glad you like the proposal. :) > I think it would also be nice to have an "out of the box" way of rotating the > key, without needing to implement a custom backend. Perhaps a second setting > OLD_SECRET_KEYS that may contain a list of old keys that are returned for > verification too? Or we could allow SECRET_KEY to be a list/tuple, and if so, > sign with the first and verify with all of them. Agreed, I will add something like that then! :) Cheers, Andreas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/A16A11DF-1439-46EF-BF0D-85C483F53608%40pelme.se. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
> On 10 Nov 2018, at 13:00, ludovic coues wrote: > > I don't see how this would work. > > For example the session. You take the user cookie. You try to validate with > your secret key. That doesn't work because the current key is the new one. > > With a custom cookie backend, you could check if the old secret could > validate the cookie. But you need to change your cookie backend to handle the > case of multiple secret key. And all third party session backend need to > update. I propose that we make the low level django.core.signing aware of multiple keys. Everything that is already using django.core.signing such as signed cookies, sessions and password reset tokens would need *not* need to change. Cheers, Andreas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5ED0D5A2-AC77-4231-824C-2EDDD7F2A903%40pelme.se. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
Hi Andreas
I like your proposal, moving to a backend is an elegant way of solving both
the immediate problem and opening up the other possibilities you mentioned.
I think it would also be nice to have an "out of the box" way of rotating
the key, without needing to implement a custom backend. Perhaps a second
setting OLD_SECRET_KEYS that may contain a list of old keys that are
returned for verification too? Or we could allow SECRET_KEY to be a
list/tuple, and if so, sign with the first and verify with all of them.
Adam
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 10:12, Andreas Pelme wrote:
> Hi,
>
> settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form
> wizards and
> other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing SECRET_KEY
> means
> that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected in
> weird
> ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? Where did
> my
> form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). This is
> desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be taken.
>
> There are other situations when it would be nice to change the SECRET_KEY
> when
> this sudden invalidation is not desirable:
>
> - When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the production
> system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer could
> potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a backdoor
> with
> full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those cases.
>
> - Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in the
> future.
>
> The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation
> impractical. If
> you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice time to
> change the SECRET_KEY.
>
> A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key while
> still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid at the
> same
> time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where
> signatures
> from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing problems
> with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard progress.
>
> You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, message
> storage backend and password reset token generator but that is cumbersome
> and
> does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django
> signing
> APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret.
>
> I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend
> (settings.SECRET_KEY_BACKEND maybe?) with an API something like:
>
> class SecretKeyBackend:
> def get_signing_key(self): …
> def get_verification_keys(self): ...
>
> The default (and backward compatible) backend would then be implemented as
> something like:
>
> class SecretKeySettingsBackend:
> def get_signing_key(self):
> return settings.SECRET_KEY
> def get_verification_keys(self):
> return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
>
> django.core.signing.Signer.{sign,unsign} would need to be updated to use
> this
> backend instead of directly using settings.SECRET_KEY.
>
> That would solve the problem project wide and work across any third party
> application that uses django.core.signing directly.
>
> This would open the door for third party secrets backend packages that
> retrieves keys from systems such as Hashicorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager,
> Google Cloud KMS, Docker Secrets etc.
>
> Having a method that retrieves the key would allow changes to secret key
> during
> run time instead of relying on a hard coded setting would allow the key to
> change without restarting the server process.
>
> Would something like this be worth pursuing? Could it be designed in som
> other
> way? I could not find any previous discussion/tickets on this and thought
> it
> would be a good idea to discuss it here before opening a ticket or making
> an
> attempt at a PR. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andreas
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20D8A2BD-BC9C-4F02-9038-044687165DE9%40pelme.se
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
Adam
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.goog
Re: Pluggable secret key backend
I don't see how this would work.
For example the session. You take the user cookie. You try to validate with
your secret key. That doesn't work because the current key is the new one.
With a custom cookie backend, you could check if the old secret could
validate the cookie. But you need to change your cookie backend to handle
the case of multiple secret key. And all third party session backend need
to update.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 11:12 Andreas Pelme Hi,
>
> settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form
> wizards and
> other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing SECRET_KEY
> means
> that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected in
> weird
> ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? Where did
> my
> form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). This is
> desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be taken.
>
> There are other situations when it would be nice to change the SECRET_KEY
> when
> this sudden invalidation is not desirable:
>
> - When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the production
> system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer could
> potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a backdoor
> with
> full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those cases.
>
> - Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in the
> future.
>
> The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation
> impractical. If
> you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice time to
> change the SECRET_KEY.
>
> A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key while
> still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid at the
> same
> time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where
> signatures
> from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing problems
> with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard progress.
>
> You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, message
> storage backend and password reset token generator but that is cumbersome
> and
> does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django
> signing
> APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret.
>
> I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend
> (settings.SECRET_KEY_BACKEND maybe?) with an API something like:
>
> class SecretKeyBackend:
> def get_signing_key(self): …
> def get_verification_keys(self): ...
>
> The default (and backward compatible) backend would then be implemented as
> something like:
>
> class SecretKeySettingsBackend:
> def get_signing_key(self):
> return settings.SECRET_KEY
> def get_verification_keys(self):
> return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
>
> django.core.signing.Signer.{sign,unsign} would need to be updated to use
> this
> backend instead of directly using settings.SECRET_KEY.
>
> That would solve the problem project wide and work across any third party
> application that uses django.core.signing directly.
>
> This would open the door for third party secrets backend packages that
> retrieves keys from systems such as Hashicorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager,
> Google Cloud KMS, Docker Secrets etc.
>
> Having a method that retrieves the key would allow changes to secret key
> during
> run time instead of relying on a hard coded setting would allow the key to
> change without restarting the server process.
>
> Would something like this be worth pursuing? Could it be designed in som
> other
> way? I could not find any previous discussion/tickets on this and thought
> it
> would be a good idea to discuss it here before opening a ticket or making
> an
> attempt at a PR. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andreas
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20D8A2BD-BC9C-4F02-9038-044687165DE9%40pelme.se
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAEuG%2B
Pluggable secret key backend
Hi,
settings.SECRET_KEY can be used for sessions, password resets, form wizards and
other cryptographic signatures via the signing APIs. Changing SECRET_KEY means
that all of those will be invalidated and the users will be affected in weird
ways without really knowing what happened. (Why am I logged out? Where did my
form submission go? Why does not this password reset link work?). This is
desirable in case the key is compromised and swift action must be taken.
There are other situations when it would be nice to change the SECRET_KEY when
this sudden invalidation is not desirable:
- When someone leaves a project/company that had access to the production
system. After SSH keys/login credentials is revoked the developer could
potentially have a copy of the secret key. It is essentially a backdoor with
full remote access. It would be wise to rotate the key in those cases.
- Periodic and automatic rotations of keys to make it less useful in the
future.
The current situation of a single SECRET_KEY makes key rotation impractical. If
you run a busy site with active users 24/7, there is never a nice time to
change the SECRET_KEY.
A solution for this problem would be sign new secrets with a new key while
still allow signatures made with the old key to be considered valid at the same
time. Changing keys and having a couple of hours of overlap where signatures
from both keys are accepted would mitigate most of the user facing problems
with invalidating sessions, password reset links and form wizard progress.
You could do this today by implementing your own session backend, message
storage backend and password reset token generator but that is cumbersome and
does not work across reusable apps that directly use low level Django signing
APIs unless they too provide hooks to provide your own secret.
I propose a pluggable project wide secret key backend
(settings.SECRET_KEY_BACKEND maybe?) with an API something like:
class SecretKeyBackend:
def get_signing_key(self): …
def get_verification_keys(self): ...
The default (and backward compatible) backend would then be implemented as
something like:
class SecretKeySettingsBackend:
def get_signing_key(self):
return settings.SECRET_KEY
def get_verification_keys(self):
return [settings.SECRET_KEY]
django.core.signing.Signer.{sign,unsign} would need to be updated to use this
backend instead of directly using settings.SECRET_KEY.
That would solve the problem project wide and work across any third party
application that uses django.core.signing directly.
This would open the door for third party secrets backend packages that
retrieves keys from systems such as Hashicorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager,
Google Cloud KMS, Docker Secrets etc.
Having a method that retrieves the key would allow changes to secret key during
run time instead of relying on a hard coded setting would allow the key to
change without restarting the server process.
Would something like this be worth pursuing? Could it be designed in som other
way? I could not find any previous discussion/tickets on this and thought it
would be a good idea to discuss it here before opening a ticket or making an
attempt at a PR. :)
Cheers,
Andreas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20D8A2BD-BC9C-4F02-9038-044687165DE9%40pelme.se.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
