[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11070?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13980146#comment-13980146
]
Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-11070:
----------------------------------------
[~tlipcon] since I see you lurking on this issue, in your email on dev@ you
mentioned two distinct read permissions, 'READ_VISIBLE' and 'READ_INVISIBLE'
that could be granted at the table level. (Given how grants via the ACL table
work though the same semantics would be available per column family.) We could
add those options to the Permission enum and make the current 'READ' a synonym
for one of them. The distinction would not be meaningful at the cell level but
that could be fine. Having the extra bit would make every authorization
decision a bit more complicated to implement and expensive. Do we also want
WRITE_VISIBLE and WRITE_INVISIBLE? Write perms can be granted independent of
read perms.
Because that gets weird I think a table / CF attribute as mentioned in the
description.
But, soliciting implementation preference. [~enis]? [~avandana] ?
> [AccessController] Restore early-out access denial if the user has no access
> at the table or CF level
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11070
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11070
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Andrew Purtell
> Assignee: Andrew Purtell
> Fix For: 0.99.0, 0.98.3
>
>
> We want to support two different use cases for cell ACLs:
> 1. The user can see all cells in a table or CF unless a cell ACL denies access
> 2. The user cannot see any cells in a table or CF unless a cell ACL grants
> access
> For the sake of flexibility we made it a toggle on an operation by operation
> basis. However this changed the behavior of the AccessController with respect
> to how requests for which a user has no grant at the table or CF level are
> handled. Prior to the cell ACL changes if a user had no grant at the table or
> CF level, they would see an AccessDeniedException. We can't do that if we
> want cell ACLs to provide exceptional access. Subsequent to the cell ACL
> changes if a user has no grant at the table or CF level, there is no
> exception, they simply won't see any cells except those granting exceptional
> access at the cell level. This also brings the AccessController semantics in
> line with those of the new VisibilityController.
> Feedback on dev@ is this change is a bridge too far for at least three
> reasons. First, it is surprising (Enis and Vandana). Second, the audit trail
> is affected or missing (Enis). Third, it allows any user on the cluster to
> mount targeted queries against all tables looking for timing differences,
> that depending on schema design could possibly leak the existence in row keys
> of sensitive information, or leak the size of the table (Todd). Although we
> can't prevent timing attacks in general we can limit the scope of what a user
> can explore by restoring early-out access denial if the user has no access at
> the table or CF level.
> We can make early-out access denial if the user has no access at the table or
> CF level configurable on a per table basis. Setting the default to "false",
> with a release note and paragraph in the security guide explaining how to
> reintroduce the old behavior, would address the above and not introduce
> another surprising change among 0.98 releases. If the consensus is
> (presumably a milder) surprise due to this change is fine, then the default
> could be "true"
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
