In a pure world I would go for all or nothing, but I always worry about the upgrade path. If I have to redeploy and restart EVERYTHING around the whole world simultaneously, it's a non-starter.
-- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager Mobile: 631-835-4771 On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Mike, I was suggesting ON | OFF only for RBAC security, not for SSL > configuration. Any thoughts on that? > > Anthony > > > On Sep 9, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > I think a reason that we might need to be less than all-or-nothing is for > > at least these two situations: > > > > 1. a user who started out with SSL disabled, and now wants to enable it, > > but can't take a full global outage, so needs to get it enabled for the > WAN > > first, and then for server-to-server and then for client/server. > > > > 2. SSL enabled over the WAN because that is not a trusted network, but > they > > can live without SSL for the server/server and client/server connections > > because they ARE in a trusted network and they don't need to pay the > > overhead for SSL on those links. > > > > There are probably other scenarios as well, but these are the two that > come > > to mind quickly. > > > > > > > > -- > > Mike Stolz > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager > > Mobile: 631-835-4771 > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > >> That is my original thought as well. If we are protecting resources > >> (CLUSTER and DATA), it should be protected no matter which way user is > >> trying to access it. I guess I'll leave this to the PMs to decide. > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> > >>> Udo, Kirk - this makes sense and thanks for the discussion to help > >> clarify > >>> the issue. > >>> > >>> Regarding GEODE-1648, does it make sense to do at all? That is, what > if > >>> role-based access control is either ON | OFF instead of per component. > >> If > >>> we allow disabling RBAC for certain components, wouldn’t that make it > >>> possible to create a backdoor? Could we start with a binary option and > >>> enable more granular control when requested by users? > >>> > >>> Anthony > >>> > >>>> On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 overall with some feedback... > >>>> > >>>> 1) I think the list is reasonable with a few nitpicks below > >>>> > >>>> 2) If these are Channels and not Components, then I would probably > name > >>> it > >>>> SecurableChannels or SecurableCommunicationChannels or whatever. > >>>> > >>>> 3) I'd prefer HTTP be renamed to Web or other non-protocol word -- > HTTP > >>> is > >>>> a protocol and the names of the other channels are conceptual channels > >>>> rather than a protocol (the others use TCP/IP or RMI but we don't > label > >>>> them as such). Or am I missing something here? > >>>> > >>>> 4) JMX is probably ok. Currently we are using (and securing) JMX over > >> RMI > >>>> (javax.management.remote.rmi.RMIConnectorServer). There are other > >>>> connectors for JMX including HTTP (ex: mx4j.tools.adaptor.http. > >>> HttpAdaptor) > >>>> and SNMP (ex: com.sun.jmx.snmp.daemon.SnmpAdaptorServer). We only > need > >>> JMX > >>>> over RMI for now, but would we add those others as new enums to > >>>> SecurableChannels later if we add anything like that to Geode? Or > would > >>> we > >>>> try to group those all together under the name JMX? Or decide when the > >>> time > >>>> comes? > >>>> > >>>> I think we should try to steer away from being overly controlled by > >> specs > >>>> especially for reasonable changes. We all follow agile process, so a > >>>> decision made one iteration could easily be undone or changed in the > >> next > >>>> iteration and most of us are following weekly iterations. > >>>> > >>>> After a release anything exposed in a User API is very difficult to > >>> change > >>>> due to backwards compatibility constraints. I think we should be much > >>> more > >>>> careful with User APIs in Geode going forward to avoid some of the > >>> problems > >>>> we have with pre-existing Geode User APIs that we inherited. > >>>> > >>>> -Kirk > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> As GEODE-420 deals with SSL comms configuration and GEODE-1648 with > >>>>> Authentication&Authorization I think we need to be careful in what is > >>>>> feasible and what is logical. > >>>>> > >>>>> For SSL comms it was decided that the following components are > >> relevant > >>>>> [1] <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Revised+S > >>>>> SL+properties>: > >>>>> > >>>>> * Locator => The comms channel between Locators + the initial comms > >>>>> channel between clients and locator > >>>>> * Cluster => Internode comms channel (peer to peer) > >>>>> * Server => Client-server comms channel > >>>>> * Gateway => Comms channel between WAN Gateway senders/receivers > >>>>> * HTTP => Any HTTP comms. incl REST and Pulse > >>>>> * JMX => Any JMX comms > >>>>> > >>>>> These components were selected as they seem to be logical boundaries > >> and > >>>>> communication interfaces. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the specialization of HTTP, for Authentication&Authorization > >> are > >>>>> functions of those interfaces: > >>>>> > >>>>> * REST-admin > >>>>> * REST-dev > >>>>> * Pulse > >>>>> > >>>>> I think that comms and functions exposed by those comms should not be > >>>>> mixed. I think that securing the comms channel is a factor of > "trust". > >>> Do I > >>>>> implicitly trust the interface/system that I am connected to or are > >>>>> connecting to. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think concepts like "management" is a concept in function. Do I > >> allow > >>> a > >>>>> user to access admin API's? The function of management should not > >>> determine > >>>>> if a system trusts another systems connection. When a new comms > >>> interface > >>>>> is added (say messaging), we want to be able to trust that comms > >>> channel. > >>>>> The "management" function should still work regardless of interface, > >> be > >>> it > >>>>> jmx,http/rest,prop tcp,messaging. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Udo > >>>>> > >>>>> [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Revised+SS > >>>>> L+properties > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 9/09/2016 5:49 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> GEODE-1648 and GEODE-420 are both trying to add geode properties to > >>> secure > >>>>>> only some components. > >>>>>> GEODE-1648 is intending to add a property named > >>>>>> "security-enabled-components" that will allow users to turn off > >>>>>> authentication/authorization for some components > >>>>>> GEODE-420 is intending to add a property named > >> "ssl-enabled-components" > >>>>>> that will allow users to turn off ssl. for either client/server, > >>>>>> peer-to-peer or wan communication. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Since both deal with security, I think we should have the same list > >> of > >>>>>> components for these new geode properties. Intent of this thread is > >> to > >>>>>> arrive at a consensus on what these components are. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would like to propose the following components: > >>>>>> Cluster => stands for peer-to-peer > >>>>>> Server => client/server and developer rest API > >>>>>> WAN => gateway sender/receiver > >>>>>> Management => jmx, admin-rest, pulse > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>> Swapnil. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers > >> > >> Jinmei > >> > >
