Madhan, let's say i have a policy with following details
Policy id : 656 Resource name : default User : aruna Access type : submit-app If user "aruna" does any other action, other than submit-app on the resource "default". Then the audit log will show the result as "denied". In this case, should the policy id which is 656 be shown along with the "denied" result, or the id will be a blank field. That's my confusion. Under what cases will the audit log show result as "denied" along with policy id.? Thanks Aruna On 17 Dec 2015 22:30, "Madhan Neethiraj" <[email protected]> wrote: > Aruna, > > >> However, the policyId still shows blank. Is this the right behavior? > Ranger populates policyId field in audit log only when that policy makes > the authorization decision – either allow or deny. In this particular case, > no policy explicitly allowed or denied the access. The end result is “deny” > - only because there was no policy to allow the access. Hence the policyId > is left blank. Hope this helps. To help understand this further, try to > answer this question: which policyId should be recorded in the audit log in > this case? Please consider that there could be multiple policies applicable > for the resource being accessed – like queue=*, queue=test*, queue=t*. > > Thanks, > Madhan > > From: Aruna Sivaram <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 12:17 AM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Queries on the developement for a new custom plugin > > Madhan, > > I was able to fix this issue for the 3rd case. Thing is that there was a > spelling mismatch between the actionType specified in the servicedef and > the actionType that is sent through the request. Now, with the change i am > getting the Result as "Denied" instead of "allowed". However, the policyId > still shows blank. Is this the right behavior? > > I am attaching a screenshot for your reference. > > Regards > Aruna > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Aruna, >> >> >> 2nd case --> if a different user "it3" does a "submit-app" on the >> "default" queue, then the audit log shows the result as "denied". However, >> the policy id is blank, is this the right behavior? the isAccessAllowed >> returns “Denied" >> >> Since there was no policy that allowed the access, the request was >> denied. Hence the policyId is blank. >> >> >> >> >> 3rd case --> if the user "network3" does a "admin-queue" on the >> "default" queue, then the audit log shows "allowed", instead of "denied” >> >> The audit log clearly says that the access was granted by policyId=656. >> Can you please send the screenshot of the policy? Another possibility is if >> your service-def has “ADMIN_QUEUE” as an impliedGrant for “SUBMIT_APP” (as >> shown below); can you please check if this is the case? >> >> "accessTypes": >> >> [ >> >> { >> >> "itemId": 1, >> >> "name": "SUBMIT_APP", >> >> "label": “SUBMIT_APP”, >> >> "impliedGrants": >> >> [ >> >> "ADMIN_QUEUE" >> >> ] >> >> }, >> >> >> { >> >> "itemId": 2, >> >> "name": “ADMIN_QUEUE", >> >> "label": "ADMIN_QUEUE" >> >> } >> >> ] >> >> >> Thanks, >> Madhan >> >> From: Aruna Sivaram <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" < >> [email protected]> >> Date: Monday, December 14, 2015 at 10:47 PM >> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Queries on the developement for a new custom plugin >> >> Madhan, >> >> Let assume that I have created a custom policy named TestPolicy, Policy >> Id : 656 for a user called "network3" giving "submit-app" permissions for >> a queue called "default". >> >> 1st case --> , if the same user "network3" does a "submit-app" on the >> "default" queue, then the audit log shows the correct result with the >> Result as "Allowed", the isAccessAllowed method returns "Allowed" >> >> 2nd case --> if a different user "it3" does a "submit-app" on the >> "default" queue, then the audit log shows the result as "denied". However, >> the policy id is blank, is this the right behavior? the isAccessAllowed >> returns "Denied" >> >> 3rd case --> if the user "network3" does a "admin-queue" on the "default" >> queue, then the audit log shows "allowed", instead of "denied" (I have >> created a policy giving only "submit-app" permissions on "default" queue to >> network3 user). In such a scenario, what should be done? Currently my >> custom authoriser passes the RangerAccessRequestImpl to the isAccessAllowed >> Method. >> and following are the values of the RangerAccessRequestImpl object in >> this scenario. >> >> RangerAccessRequestImpl request = new >> RangerAccessRequestImpl(); >> RangerAccessResourceImpl resource = new >> RangerAccessResourceImpl(); >> resource.setValue("queue", default); >> request.setResource(resource); >> request.setAccessType("admin-queue"); >> request.setUser("network3"); >> request.setAccessTime(new Date()); >> >> request.setAccessTime(org.apache.ranger.authorization.utils.StringUtil.getUTCDate()); >> request.setAction("admin-queue"); >> request.setClientIPAddress("10.0.2.15"); >> RangerAccessResult result = plugin.isAccessAllowed(request); >> return result == null ? false : result.getIsAllowed(); >> In this scenario, the isAccessAllowed returns "Allowed", ideally it >> should return "denied". >> >> >> I have attached the screenshot for your reference, which highlights the 3 >> cases that i have pointed out. >> >> Regards >> Aruna >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Aruna, >>> >>> >> However, in cases, where a user cannot access a resource, the audit >>> UI (access tab) should show "denied". However, in my case, it stills shows >>> as "allowed" instead of "denied". It would be helpful if you could tell me >>> what needs to be done in such a case. I am invoking the >>> isAccessAllowed(<RangerAccessRequest>) from my custom authoriser. Let me >>> know what needs to be passed to this API when a user is not allowed to >>> access a particular resource. >>> >>> 1. Audit log (in access tab) should include the ID of the policy that >>> allowed the access. Can you please check? >>> 2. What was the return from isAccessAllowed(request)? Allow or Deny? >>> >>> If above does not help to identify the issue, can you please send the >>> return value from isAccessAllowed(request) and the screenshot of the >>> corresponding audit log? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Madhan >>> >>> From: Aruna Sivaram <[email protected]> >>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" < >>> [email protected]> >>> Date: Monday, December 14, 2015 at 7:07 AM >>> >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected] >>> > >>> Subject: Re: Queries on the developement for a new custom plugin >>> >>> Bosco, >>> >>> Thanks for a very detailed explanation, it has given me a very good >>> perspective on how ranger works/can be used. >>> >>> Our use case is that we plan to use apache ranger for authorization of a >>> home grown application that is non hadoop in nature. As we are using ranger >>> for the authorization for all the hadoop based components, we plan to use >>> ranger for all custom based applications in order to ensure consistency as >>> well as use the auditing / GUI and various other features of ranger. >>> >>> Good news is that, I was able to write a custom plugin & custom >>> authoriser in ranger for our service and it is also able to sync >>> successfully (as seen in the plugin tab of the audit GUI). The audit UI >>> (access tab) is also showing the details of the policy that has been >>> accessed. >>> >>> However, in cases, where a user cannot access a resource, the audit UI >>> (access tab) should show "denied". However, in my case, it stills shows as >>> "allowed" instead of "denied". It would be helpful if you could tell me >>> what needs to be done in such a case. I am invoking the >>> isAccessAllowed(<RangerAccessRequest>) from my custom authoriser. Let me >>> know what needs to be passed to this API when a user is not allowed to >>> access a particular resource. >>> >>> >>> Thank you once again. >>> >>> Regards >>> Aruna >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Don Bosco Durai <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Aruna, can you give more detail on what you are trying to achieve? >>>> >>>> I was searching for integration design diagram, but couldn’t find one. >>>> We will work on creating one. In the meanwhile, here is the high level. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Ranger plugins run within the component process. >>>> 2. It gives a light java library, which does the following: >>>> 1. Provides method to check access. >>>> RangerBasePlugin.isAccessAllow() (explicit, you have to call it) >>>> 2. Pulls policies from Ranger Admin (implicit) >>>> 3. Does auditing (implicit) >>>> 3. Ranger community works closely with the Hadoop component >>>> community for writing plugins for Hadoop components. Currently, there >>>> are >>>> close to 9 plugins available as part of Ranger (HDFS, Hive, Hbase, >>>> Kafka, >>>> Solr, YARN, Storm, Knox and KMS). We are working with the other >>>> communities >>>> to support more. >>>> 4. The framework is generic and so you can use Ranger to provide >>>> access control to your home grown application also. The wiki page >>>> >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53741207 >>>> gives >>>> how to implement custom stack. >>>> 5. Ranger design philosophy is not to change the authorization of >>>> the component, but have the component define an interface and abstract >>>> all >>>> the actions the component supports. This way the components are free to >>>> support any actions they want to and evolve them over the period of >>>> time. >>>> This also help other security providers to provide similar >>>> implementation. >>>> >>>> So if you are planning to write a custom plugin, I assume you are >>>> having your app and you want to use Ranger to provide the access control >>>> and audit. And if that is the case, some of the questions you have asked >>>> applies mostly on your side. >>>> >>>> 1. log4j: Since Ranger plugin is embedded within the process, it >>>> uses the component’s logging framework. So out here, it will be yours >>>> 2. If you want to use Ranger plugin, first you need to create an >>>> interface in your application for authorization. We recommend you >>>> provide >>>> the default/native simple implementation. Ranger will implement the same >>>> interface, but Ranger implementation will use the policies from Ranger >>>> Admin. You can review the following sample implementations: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-ranger/blob/master/plugin-solr/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/authorization/solr/authorizer/RangerSolrAuthorizer.java >>>> and >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-ranger/blob/master/plugin-kafka/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/authorization/kafka/authorizer/RangerKafkaAuthorizer.java >>>> 3. Once your interface is defined, then the wiki pages tells how to >>>> define a service using JSON. Which can be loaded in Ranger Admin. After >>>> that you can create the policies from Ranger Admin UI, the REST APIs for >>>> managing polices are automatically possible, the Ranger Admin audit UI >>>> will >>>> start showing the audits, etc. >>>> >>>> Please give your use case, so we can guide you better. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Bosco >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Ramesh Mani <[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:12 PM >>>> >>>> To: "[email protected]" < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Queries on the developement for a new custom plugin >>>> >>>> Please find the answer below. >>>> >>>> From: Aruna Sivaram <[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:34 PM >>>> To: "[email protected]" < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Queries on the developement for a new custom plugin >>>> >>>> Thanks for your quick response.Please find my queries inline. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Ramesh Mani <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> If you have created a CustomService, and if you want to authorize the >>>>> access of components/resources in your CustomService, then you need to >>>>> have >>>>> default authorizer in your CustomService to do authorization, which you >>>>> will extend in your Ranger custom plugin and will be called when your >>>>> CustomService needs authorization check. >>>>> >>>> >>>> [*Aruna] : It would be great if you could provide a snippet/example >>>> where the authoriser code present in the plugin is invoked by the existing >>>> services (hive/hdfs/storm/kafka) for authorisation. This would give me a >>>> better picture as to how it exactly works.* >>>> [RM] Each service dictates how to the register the custom authorizer >>>> with it. So you need to refer the respective service’s authorization >>>> mechanism. >>>> >>>> >>>>> For logging, as you had seen it uses log4j you can have log4j appender >>>>> in the log4.properties and get the log, all hadoop components have their >>>>> log4j properties file where it specify the location it puts the log. >>>>> By default it is /var/log/hadoop/ for hadoop. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *[Aruna] : there are many log4j.properties in the ranger code base and >>>> there is no specific log4j.properties for each of the plugins. Hence, which >>>> log4j.properties do i need to modify. My aim is to see all the logs >>>> generated by my custom plugin. This would enable me to debug the code >>>> better.* >>>> [RM] Here also each service provides it log4j.properties file and that >>>> is where you define appender for ranger also. >>>> >>>> [Aruna ] : The other thing i wanted to know was how does one start the >>>> plugin or rather initiate the plugin which polls for the policies. I see >>>> that the enable-<service>-plugin.sh scripts sets the environment and copies >>>> property files to the right locations, but i dont see where the authoriser >>>> is instantiated in order to invoke the init() method of the >>>> RangerbasePlugin. >>>> [RM] This is already in the wiki page. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks for all your help >>>>> >>>> >>>> Aruna >>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Aruna Sivaram <[email protected]> >>>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:45 PM >>>>> To: "[email protected]" < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Queries on the developement for a new custom plugin >>>>> >>>>> I am using ranger 0.5 for the access control. We are planning to >>>>> develop a custom plugin which we plan to integrate with the ranger >>>>> framework. This custom plugin will be used for access control of our >>>>> components. In order to explore this possibility, i have written a custom >>>>> plugin as per the example given in the link >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53741207 >>>>> >>>>> Since this is a custom plugin, my authoriser class >>>>> (CustomServiceAuthoriser), will not be extending any of the hadoop >>>>> security >>>>> classes (Eg in case of storm or hive, the RangerStormAuthoriser implements >>>>> IAuthorizer and RangerYarnAuthorizer extends YarnAuthorizationProvider. I >>>>> have created the repository and policies for the same through the rest web >>>>> service. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have written the custom service authoriser as per the example and >>>>> deployed the same on the sandbox. I have a service named CustomService. >>>>> What i wanted to know is how the customservice will communicate with my >>>>> customserviceauthoriser which is contained in my plugin. Currently i dont >>>>> find any documentation which talks about the mode of communication or >>>>> rather how the plugin class will be invoked by the service. >>>>> >>>>> I am relatively new to ranger so may be I am missing something ? >>>>> >>>>> Also, i would like to know the location of the log where each of the >>>>> plugin classes would be logging. This will help us in debugging the flow. >>>>> I >>>>> see a lot of log statements in the ranger plugin code base but am unable >>>>> to >>>>> find the location of the logs. >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, can ranger be used to develop custom plugins for access >>>>> control of non hadoop components? >>>>> >>>>> Any help from your end would be appreciated >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards >>>>> Aruna Sivaram >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards >>>> Aruna Sivaram >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards >>> Aruna Sivaram >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards >> Aruna Sivaram >> > > > > -- > Regards > Aruna Sivaram >
