Hi Chris,
Apologies for the name confusion! I've been working with the my customer
sponsor over the last few weeks, and we finally have an answer regarding "only
exceptions or all responses." This organization is really interested in
removing stack traces from all responses, which will expand the scope of this
KIP a bit. I'm going to update the wiki entry, and then would it be reasonable
to call for a vote?
Thanks!
Connor
On 4/17/20, 3:53 PM, "Christopher Egerton" <chr...@confluent.io> wrote:
Hi Connor,
That's great, but I think you may have mistaken Colin for me :)
One more thing that should be addressed--the "public interfaces" section
isn't just for Java interfaces, it's for any changes to any public part of
Kafka that users and external developers interact with. As far as Connect
is concerned, this includes (but is not limited to) the REST API and worker
configuration properties, so it might be worth briefly summarizing the
scope of your proposed changes in that section (something like "We plan on
adding a new worker config named <name> that will affect the REST API under
<conditions>".
Cheers,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:00 PM Connor Penhale <cpenh...@perforce.com>
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I can ask the customer if they can disclose any additional information. I
> provided the information around "PCI-DSS" to give the community a flavor
of
> the type of environment the customer was operating in. The current mode is
> /not/ insecure, I would agree with this. I would be willing to agree that
> my customer has particular security audit requirements that go above and
> beyond what most environments would consider reasonable. Are you
> comfortable with that language?
>
> " enable.rest.response.stack.traces" works great for me!
>
> I created a new class in the example PR because I wanted the highest
> chance of not gunking up the works by stepping on toes in an important
> class. I figured I'd be reducing risk by creating an alternative
> implementing class. In retrospect, and now that I'm getting a first-hand
> look at Kafka's community process, that is probably unnecessary.
> Additionally, I would agree with your statement that we should modify the
> existing ExceptionMapper to avoid behavior divergence in subsequent
> releases and ensure this feature's particular scope is easy to maintain.
>
> Thanks!
> Connor
>
> On 4/15/20, 1:17 PM, "Colin McCabe" <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Connor,
>
> I still would like to hear more about whether this feature is required
> for PCI-DSS or any other security certification. Nobody I talked to
seemed
> to think that it was-- if there are certifications that would require
this,
> it would be nice to know. However, I don't object to implementing this as
> long as we don't imply that the current mode is insecure.
>
> What do you think about using "enable.rest.response.stack.traces" as
> the config name? It seems like that makes it clearer that it's a boolean
> value.
>
> It's not really necessary to describe the internal implementation in
> the KIP, but since you mentioned it, it's probably worth considering using
> the current ExceptionMapper class with a different configuration rather
> than creating a new one.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, at 09:04, Connor Penhale wrote:
> > Hi Chris!
> >
> > RE: SSL, indeed, the issue is not that the information is not
> > encrypted, but that there is no authorization layer.
> >
> > I'll be sure to edit the KIP as we continue discussion!
> >
> > RE: the 200 response you highlighted, great catch! I'll work with my
> > customer and get back to you on their audit team's intention! I'm
> > fairly certain I know the answer, but I need to be sure before I
> speak
> > for them.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Connor
> >
> > On 4/8/20, 11:27 PM, "Christopher Egerton" <chr...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Connor,
> >
> > Just a few more remarks!
> >
> > I noticed that you said "Kafka Connect was passing these
> exceptions without
> > authentication." For what it's worth, the Connect REST API can
> be secured
> > with TLS out-of-the-box by configuring the worker with the
> various ssl.*
> > properties, but that doesn't provide any kind of authorization
> layer to
> > provide levels of security depending who the user is. Just
> pointing out in
> > case this helps with your use case.
> >
> > As far as editing the KIP based on discussion goes--it's not
only
> > acceptable, it's expected :) Ideally, the KIP should be kept
> up-to-date to
> > the point where, were it to be accepted at any moment, it would
> accurately
> > reflect the changes that would then be made to Kafka. This can
> be relaxed
> > if there's rapid iteration or items that are still up for
> discussion, but
> > as soon as things settle down it should be updated.
> >
> > As far as item 4 goes, my question was about exceptions that
> aren't handled
> > by the ExceptionMapper, but which are returned as part of the
> response body
> > when querying the status of a connector or task that has failed
> by querying
> > the /connectors/{name}/status or
> /connectors/{name}/tasks/{taskId}/status
> > endpoints. Even if the request is successful and results in an
> HTTP 200
> > response, the body might contain a stack trace if the connector
> or any of
> > its tasks have failed.
> >
> > For example, I ran an instance of the FileStreamSource connector
> named
> > "file-source" locally and instructed it to consume from a file
> that it
> > lacked permissions to read. When I queried the status of that
> connector by
> > issuing a request to /connectors/file-source/status, I got back
> the
> > following response:
> >
> > {
> > "name": "file-source",
> > "connector": {
> > "state": "RUNNING",
> > "worker_id": "192.168.86.21:8083"
> > },
> > "tasks": [
> > {
> > "id": 0,
> > "state": "FAILED",
> > "worker_id": "192.168.86.21:8083",
> > "trace":
"org.apache.kafka.connect.errors.ConnectException:
> > java.nio.file.AccessDeniedException: test.txt\n\tat
> >
> >
>
org.apache.kafka.connect.file.FileStreamSourceTask.poll(FileStreamSourceTask.java:116)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSourceTask.poll(WorkerSourceTask.java:265)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSourceTask.execute(WorkerSourceTask.java:232)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerTask.doRun(WorkerTask.java:177)\n\tat
> >
> >
> org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerTask.run(WorkerTask.java:227)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:511)\n\tat
> > java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:266)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)\n\tat
> > java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)\nCaused by:
> > java.nio.file.AccessDeniedException: test.txt\n\tat
> >
> >
>
sun.nio.fs.UnixException.translateToIOException(UnixException.java:84)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
sun.nio.fs.UnixException.rethrowAsIOException(UnixException.java:102)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
sun.nio.fs.UnixException.rethrowAsIOException(UnixException.java:107)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
sun.nio.fs.UnixFileSystemProvider.newByteChannel(UnixFileSystemProvider.java:214)\n\tat
> > java.nio.file.Files.newByteChannel(Files.java:361)\n\tat
> > java.nio.file.Files.newByteChannel(Files.java:407)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
java.nio.file.spi.FileSystemProvider.newInputStream(FileSystemProvider.java:384)\n\tat
> > java.nio.file.Files.newInputStream(Files.java:152)\n\tat
> >
> >
>
org.apache.kafka.connect.file.FileStreamSourceTask.poll(FileStreamSourceTask.java:82)\n\t...
> > 9 more\n"
> > }
> > ],
> > "type": "source"
> > }
> >
> > Note the "trace" field in the first element of the "tasks" field
> of the
> > response: this was the stack trace for the exception that caused
> the task
> > to fail during execution, which has nothing to do with the
> success or
> > failure of the REST request I issued to the
> /connectors/file-source/status
> > endpoint.
> >
> > I was wondering if you wanted to include these kinds of stack
> traces as
> > part of the KIP, as opposed to uncaught exceptions that result
> in a 500
> > error from the REST API.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:51 AM Connor Penhale <
> cpenh...@perforce.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All!
> > >
> > > Is there any additional feedback that the community can
provide
> > me on the
> > > KIP? Has anyone else run into requirements like this, or maybe
> my
> > customer
> > > is the only one :)? If the scope looks good, is it time to
> call a
> > vote? Or
> > > should I start porting my 2.0 code to 2.6 to show examples?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Connor
> > >
> > > On 4/6/20, 9:03 AM, "Connor Penhale" <cpenh...@perforce.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Colin,
> > >
> > > We did not find a specific security vulnerability. Our
> > customer had
> > > auditors in their environment, and they identified Kafka
> Connect
> > as out of
> > > compliance with their particular standards, something that
> > happens all the
> > > time for REST-based applications. What these security auditors
> > expected
> > > Kafka Connect to be able to do was tune the response. As Kafka
> > Connect
> > > could not provide this functionality, I'm proposing this KIP.
> > Does that
> > > make sense? Should I still go through the process of a
security
> > disclosure?
> > >
> > > Our particular need was around suppressing exceptions in
> the
> > "public"
> > > response, as Kafka Connect was passing these exceptions
without
> > > authentication, they became a public endpoint upon which the
> > auditors could
> > > fuzz, and show it being out of compliance. Keeping these
> > exceptions in the
> > > logs, as proposed in the KIP, makes sense to me as an
operator.
> > >
> > > I only mention PCI-DSS as this was the kind of environment
> my
> > customer
> > > had that was making the request for being able to tune the
> > response.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Connor
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Connor Penhale | Enterprise Architect, OpenLogic (
> > > https://openlogic.com/)
> > > Perforce (https://www.perforce.com/)
> > > Support: +1 866.399.6736
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/3/20, 3:24 PM, "Colin McCabe" <cmcc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, if you do find a security issue, the process to
> > follow is
> > > here: https://kafka.apache.org/project-security.html .
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Colin
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, at 14:20, Colin McCabe wrote:
> > > > Hi Connor,
> > > >
> > > > If we are putting security-sensitive information
into
> > REST
> > > responses,
> > > > that is a bug that needs to be fixed, not worked
> around
> > with a
> > > > configuration option. Do you have an example of
> > > security-sensitive
> > > > information appearing in the exception text? Why do
> > you feel
> > > that
> > > > PCI-DSS requires this change?
> > > >
> > > > By the way, the same concern applies to log
messages.
> > We do not
> > > log
> > > > sensitive information such as passwords to the log4j
> > output. If
> > > you
> > > > know of that happening somewhere, please file a bug
> so
> > it can be
> > > fixed.
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, at 12:56, Connor Penhale wrote:
> > > > > Hi Chris!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your feedback! I'll number my responses
> to
> > your
> > > questions / thoughts.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Apologies on that lack of clarity! I settled on
> > "Detailed
> > > exception
> > > > > information has been suppressed. Please see logs."
> > > > > (
> > >
> >
>
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8355/files#diff-64c265986e7bbe40cdd79f831e961907R34
> ).
> > > Should I update the KIP to reflect what I've already thought
> > about? It's my
> > > first one, not sure what the process should be for editing.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I was unaware of the REST extensions! I'll see
> if
> > I can
> > > implement
> > > > > the same behavior as a REST extension. I agree
that
> > the KIP
> > > still has
> > > > > merit, regardless of the feasibility of the
> > extension, but in
> > > regards
> > > > > to the 5th thought, this might make that decision
> > easier.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. I agree with your suggestion here. Absolutely
> > ready to take
> > > the
> > > > > community feedback on what makes sense here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. I should note that while I emphasized uncaught
> > exceptions,
> > > I mean
> > > > > all exceptions handled by the ExceptionMapper,
> > including
> > > > > ConnectRestExceptions. An example of this is here:
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8355/files#diff-64c265986e7bbe40cdd79f831e961907R46
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. I didn't know how specific I should get if I
had
> > already
> > > taken a
> > > > > stab at implementing! I'm happy to edit this in
> > whatever way
> > > we want to
> > > > > go about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me know if anyone has any other questions or
> > feedback!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Connor
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/2/20, 3:58 PM, "Christopher Egerton"
> > <chr...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Connor,
> > > > >
> > > > > Great stuff! I generally like being able to
see
> > the stack
> > > trace of an
> > > > > exception directly via the REST API but can
> > definitely
> > > understand the
> > > > > security concerns here. I've got a few
> > questions/remarks
> > > about the KIP and
> > > > > would be interested in your thoughts:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The KIP mentions a
> > SUPRESSED_EXCEPTION_MESSAGE, but
> > > doesn't actually
> > > > > outline what this message would actually be.
> It'd
> > be great
> > > to see the
> > > > > actual message in the KIP since people may
have
> > thoughts
> > > on what it should
> > > > > be and want to comment on it as part of this
> > discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. In the "Rejected Alternatives" section, an
> > Nginx proxy
> > > is
> > > > > mentioned as
> > > > > one possible way to filter out stack traces
> from
> > the REST
> > > API. It
> > > > > seems
> > > > > like a Connect REST extension (
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://kafka.apache.org/24/javadoc/index.html?org/apache/kafka/connect/rest/ConnectRestExtension.html
> > > )
> > > > > would be a better alternative than an Nginx
> > proxy; had you
> > > > > considered
> > > > > utilizing one? I still think this KIP is
> > worthwhile and a
> > > REST
> > > > > extension
> > > > > shouldn't be necessary in order to lock down
> the
> > REST API
> > > this way,
> > > > > but it
> > > > > might be worth calling out as an alternative
> and
> > perhaps
> > > even a
> > > > > workaround
> > > > > in cases where users are stuck on a given
> version
> > of
> > > Connect and
> > > > > can't
> > > > > upgrade to 2.6 (or whichever version this KIP
> > lands on)
> > > any time
> > > > > soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. The
> > "error.rest.response.message.detail.enabled"
> > > property is a bit of a
> > > > > mouthful; it'd be great if we could come up
> with
> > something
> > > more succinct.
> > > > > What do you think about something like
> > > "rest.response.stack.traces"?
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. The KIP is targeted at stack traces for
> > uncaught
> > > exceptions, but it's
> > > > > also possible that stack traces get exposed in
> > the REST
> > > API when querying
> > > > > the status of a connector or one of its tasks.
> > Was this
> > > intentional? If so,
> > > > > it'd be great to call out why that kind of
> > filtering is
> > > not required in the
> > > > > "Rejected Alternatives" section, and if not,
> it's
> > probably
> > > not too late to
> > > > > consider modifying the KIP to cover those
cases
> > as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. The KIP mentions creating a new, separate
> > exception
> > > mapper class. This
> > > > > seems like more of an implementation detail
and
> > something
> > > that can be
> > > > > decided on during code review; unless it's
> > critical to the
> > > functionality
> > > > > that the KIP aims to accomplish, I'd suggest
> > leaving that
> > > part out since it
> > > > > shouldn't affect the impact on users of the
> > Connect
> > > framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP, looking forward to seeing
> > this happen!
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:01 AM Connor Penhale
> <
> > > cpenh...@perforce.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello All!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’ve created the following KIP:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-587:+Suppress+detailed+responses+for+handled+exceptions+in+security-sensitive+environments
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The PR that originated this discussion, is
> here:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8355
> It
> > is based
> > > on 2.0,
> > > > > but I
> > > > > > would be working on Kafka Connect in 2.6 to
> get
> > this
> > > behavior
> > > > > changed to
> > > > > > the community’s preference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking forward to working with everyone!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Connor
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Connor Penhale | Enterprise Architect,
> OpenLogic
> > > > > (https://openlogic.com/)
> > > > > > Perforce (https://www.perforce.com/)
> > > > > > Support: +1 866.399.6736
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This e-mail may contain information that is
> > privileged or
> > > > > confidential. If
> > > > > > you are not the intended recipient, please
> > delete the
> > > e-mail and
> > > > > any
> > > > > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
> the
> > > organization. Do
> > > > > not click on links or open attachments unless you
> > recognize
> > > the sender
> > > > > and know the content is safe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This e-mail may contain information that is
> > privileged or
> > > confidential.
> > > > > If you are not the intended recipient, please
> delete
> > the
> > > e-mail and any
> > > > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the
> > organization.
> > > Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize
> > the sender
> > > and know the content is safe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> > > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> > delete the
> > > e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> > confidential. If
> > > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
> and
> > any
> > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
> Do
> > not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender
> > and know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and
> any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments
and notify us immediately.
