2008/12/2 Robbie Gemmell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi all, I thought I would start a new thread on qpid-dev to discuss this, as > there has been a couple of fractured conversations about it on JIRA and on > qpid-dev that I think could do with consolidation to get everyone on the same > page at the same time. > > My commentary below is based on trunk + some patches I submitted, not all of > which have been committed yet, but the ones that haven't merely fix issues > while leaving things implemented in mostly the same way it was already done. > > The current situation as I understand it (feel free to correct me if I am > misunderstanding anything): > > The broker (via JMXMangedObjectRegistry class) can currently start a > JMXConnectorServer that uses the RMIConnector shipped with the jvm which as > configured is totally unauthenticated, or if you supply the > jmxremote_optional.jar and enable management security in the configuration it > can start a JMXConnectorServer which uses a JMXMPConnector that can perform > either PLAIN or CRAM-MD5(HASHED) SASL negotiation, picked depending on > whether the principal database is of the Plain or a Base64MD5 variety. As the > JMXConnectorServers environment map can only specify one callback handler and > these are initialised depending on the type of principal database in use it > can only do one or the other and not both, preventing SASL profile > negotiation between PLAIN and CRAM-MD5(HASHED). > > When started without any flags the management console connects with using an > unauthenticated RMIConnector, or with -Dsecurity options being set at startup > to either PLAIN or CRAM-MD5(HASHED) will perform authentication across a > JMXMPConnector using the jmxremote_optional.jar. It has to be told which type > of security as the JMXConnector's startup environment map only allows > supplying one callbackhandler and it needs to know whether it should be > transmitting a hashed password value or not, based on what the broker is > going to expect(ie whether it is using a Plain PD or Base64MD5 PD). As such, > proper SASL profile negotiation between PLAIN and CRAM-MD5(HASHED) currently > cant occur as the console currently needs to know which type of PD the broker > it is connecting to is using. > > The lack of authentication with the RMIConnector is what is causing the > problems with QPID-1469 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1469), as > there is no jmx user for it to return so it NPE's which leads to breaking the > jmxremote.access update process and then later prevents the broker running if > it is restarted. It also allows users access to the UserManagement section > whether they have admin rights or not, and although I havent checked, I think > the whole console in general whether they have any jmx rights at all. > > > How to move forward: > > It is possible to authenticate a basic RMIConnector with plain text > authentication (and optionally SSL), the current implementation in the > broker/console just doesnt do it. There are built in utilities to do it, but > they require direct access to a plain text user:password file. Alternatively > you can implement your own process using a JMXAuthenticator and specify it in > the connector server environment, so in qpids case it could use the > PrincipalDatabase's to function which would allow customising the approach > depending on the type of PD was encountered, allowing authentication > regardless of PD type. > > For SASL via JMXMP, if the RMIConnector is made capable of doing plain > authentication it isn't really needed to do it again using JMXMP, so that > could be scrapped and users would then have a simple choice between plain > authentication using an out of the box RMIConnector when using either type of > PD, or use a Base64MD5 PD and CRAM-MD5(HASHED) SASL authentication over JMXMP > by using the jmxremote_optional.jar addon. Security wouldn't need to be > forced on, and so no one would need the optional jar unless they wanted > CRAM-MD5 sasl jmx connnections. > > An alternative is to integrate MX4J. Having now looked, it takes the > JMXAuthenticator approach to securing normal RMIConnector's and works by > taking direct access to a username:password file which can be either plain or > have the passwords as base64 encoded MD5 or SHA-1 hashes. It doesn't > implement the JMXMP connector yet, but does have alternative connectors in > the form of burlap, hessian, or soap over http(+ssl if desired) through use > of Jetty etc. > > > Discuss :P > > Robbie >
>From a brief look at the JMXRemote specification (http://www.ece.uic.edu/~cpress/jmx/jmx_remote-1_0-fr-specJSR-000160.pdf) my favoured approach would be to see what MX4J has to offer but we should look do some form of protocol negotiation. So we can more easily decide what authentication we wish to perform over the connection. This may be over thinking this to much purely for the Java broker and if we had a shippable authentication solution that would suffice. If we need something more control-able then perhaps the C++ management exchange approach would better suit. I've got a few JIRAs to raise in this space so will do this now and perhaps they will also stimulate discussion. Martin -- Martin Ritchie
