Good suggestion, Koji.
On 11/20/18, 20:38, "Koji Kawamura" <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree with Bryan and Kevin. This is a good feature request.
Filed a JIRA for further discussion.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFIREG-212
In the meantime, as a work-around I'd deploy a reverse proxy (Nginx)
in front of NiFi Registry to only pass mutation requests
(POST/PUT/DELETE) from dev NiFi hosts.
https://serverfault.com/questions/152745/nginx-proxy-by-request-method
Thanks,
Koji
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:33 PM Kevin Doran <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> I think Bryan’s correct that this makes a good feature request for
Registry.
>
>
>
> One idea is if you are able to set separate policies for production NiFi
and non-production NiFi, then you could limit the user policies to read only
for the NiFi canvas / process group and only allow a service account or admin
have write access to that NiFi.
>
>
>
> NiFi registry would still technically be writable by those users, but it
would prevent them from doing something like making a change in the production
NiFi and then saving that version to Registry. It would be a safe guard to make
sure changes get introduced to the Registry copy from non-production NiFis.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> From: Bryan Bende <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 08:28
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Multiple NiFi clusters with 1 NiFi Rigistry
>
>
>
> I think we would need to build some type of feature into registry to
truly support this. Possibly a more specific policy for proxies so that we
could say Dev NiFi can proxy read and write requests, and prod NiFi can only
proxy read requests. Currently it would only really work if you had separate
Kerberos domains, or weren’t using ranger.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:25 AM Woodhead, Chad <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Hi Koji,
>
> Unfortunately all of my NiFi clusters use the same Kerberos domain, which
is making this harder.
>
> Using NiFi identity mappings to map the same Kerberos principal to
environment aware ones seems like a good idea, but I’m thinking there will then
be a disconnect for Ranger (used for NiFi authorization) and NiFi Registry. I
say this because we use ldap user/group sync for Ranger and ldap sync for NiFi
Registry using ldap-user-group-provider.
>
> So in Ranger and NiFi Registry, the users are just listed as ‘bob’ and
not ‘bob@dev’. That means I would manually have to add users to Ranger and NiFi
Registry to add the ‘@dev’ part right? Or is there a way to customize that too?
>
> Hope I’m not overcomplicating this!
>
> Thanks,
> Chad
>
> On 11/19/18, 8:26 PM, "Koji Kawamura" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> *External Message* - Use caution before opening links or attachments
>
> Hi Chad,
>
> NiFi Registry uses NiFi user's identity to authorize request.
> Registry also checks NiFi instance's identity to authorize proxying
> user requests, but this can only authorize proxy capability. In order
> to control access such as bucket read/write, Registry uses NiFi user's
> identity.
>
> I assume the kerberos identities are different among those
> environments (Dev, Cert and Prod). And Registry will have different
> user identities for those.
> E.g. for user Bob, Registry would have bob@dev, bob@cert and bob@prod
> Then you can define dev, cert and prod groups at Registry to give
> certain access to buckets.
> E.g. give read/write access to dev group, and give only read access to
> cert and prod groups for a bucket.
>
> In case your NiFi clusters use the same Kerberos domain, you can use
> NiFi identity mapping to map the same Kerberos principal to
> environment aware ones, so that the above authorization can be
> configured at NiFi Registry.
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nifi.apache.org_docs_nifi-2Ddocs_html_administration-2Dguide.html-23identity-2Dmapping-2Dproperties&d=DwIFaQ&c=gJN2jf8AyP5Q6Np0yWY19w&r=MJ04HXP0mOz9-J4odYRNRx3ln4A_OnHTjJvmsZOEG64&m=lFWN8OtWhTL6eW3O-K1-lwIDlC0ZViDDrxxFSys2-Lw&s=_4v5XehCxEQZKSAr800935KuCtiECO-BQGkPknz5Gg4&e=
>
> Thanks,
> Koji
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:38 AM Woodhead, Chad
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I am standing up 3 new HDF 3.2 clusters (Dev, Cert, and Prod) and
we will be focusing on NiFi (1.7.0) + NiFi Registry (0.2.0). We are using git
as our FlowPersistenceProvider. My plan is to use 1 NiFi Registry (the Prod
NiFi registry) for all 3 clusters, rather than having 3 NiFi Registries and
trying to keep the DB’s in sync between the 3 NiFi Registry instances.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a way to implement some type of authorization so that
users can only PUSH/PULL changes from Dev NiFi to Prod NiFi Registry, and only
PULL from Cert and Prod NiFi from Prod NiFi Registry?
> >
> >
> >
> > NiFi and NiFi Registry both use the ‘kerberos-identity-provider’
for authentication, and the Prod NiFi Registry authenticates with git via a ssh
access key.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chad
>
> --
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
