Is the security issue only printing out the passwords in stdout? If yes, I can easily remove that.
On 2025/03/27 18:29:27 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Just a comment. > > Explaining how to disable it is almost the same as officially making it > production-ready but without guarantees. Look how many people are using > sequential executor despite having the warning. If we tell people how to > disable it easily, they will just use it. Plenty of themm. > > And I am not against it. > > I would've for it and make it ready, rather than pretending it is not > happening and getting hit be some security issue raised to us because big > percentage of our users will just use it. > > J. > > czw., 27 mar 2025, 18:29 użytkownik Daniel Standish > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> napisał: > > > So yes we can make it friendlier and then tell users how it can be disabled > > by config. > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:28 AM Daniel Standish < > > daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: > > > > > There needs to be a way to disable the banner IMO > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:20 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> message cut: > > >> > > >> I am fine with Option (1) given the current time constraints and since > > it > > >> is for dev only and can be iterated in follow-up releases > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 22:47, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I am fine with Option (1) imo > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 22:05, Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Following back on that thread (I should probably have called it out > > >> >> during the Airflow 3 dev call). We have two options: > > >> >> - Option 1: update the banner with a friendlier message > > >> >> - Option 2: resolve the security issue to make SAM production > > >> compatible > > >> >> and remove the banner > > >> >> > > >> >> Any preference on which option we should go with? > > >> >> > > >> >> On 2025/03/24 16:52:11 "Oliveira, Niko" wrote: > > >> >> > Agreed, I think combining the two will make SAM not so simple. But > > we > > >> >> should definitely have an open source, easy to acquire option for > > >> people to > > >> >> use that has all the bells and whistles that SAM does not have. And > > >> >> KeyCloack is a decent option for this! > > >> >> > > > >> >> > ________________________________ > > >> >> > From: Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> > > >> >> > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 6:04:42 AM > > >> >> > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] confusing alert re SimpleAuthManager > > >> >> > > > >> >> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > > >> not > > >> >> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and > > >> know > > >> >> the content is safe. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur > > >> >> externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si > > >> vous > > >> >> ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes > > >> pas > > >> >> certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I do not think integrating KeyCloak with SAM is a great idea. > > Having > > >> a > > >> >> separate auth manager specific to KeyCloak is, on the other side, a > > >> good > > >> >> idea. We should keep SAM simple as it is. I also do not think making > > it > > >> >> secure require a lot of work so I do not think it is worth having a > > >> >> development and production mode. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On 2025/03/21 21:52:13 Buğra Öztürk wrote: > > >> >> > > Giving users a warning sounds good. > > >> >> > > I agree with Pierre, too. How about defining the rules set to be > > >> >> secure by > > >> >> > > design? Or just following up on a pattern without discovering > > >> >> something > > >> >> > > new? Could you please elaborate on Jarek? > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > *TLDR* > > >> >> > > It may be a slight implementation detail and just a thought, but > > we > > >> >> could > > >> >> > > integrate Keycloak into the SAM, providing development and > > >> production > > >> >> modes > > >> >> > > with configurations such as breeze dev and installation prod. I > > >> >> believe > > >> >> > > that instead of maintaining an application to always be secure by > > >> >> default, > > >> >> > > we can focus on maintaining integration within SAM. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 7:28 PM Vincent Beck < > > vincb...@apache.org> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > We could simply stop printing out these passwords. Passwords > > are > > >> >> auto > > >> >> > > > generated if not already defined in a file configured in > > `[core] > > >> >> > > > simple_auth_manager_passwords_file`. So the user can see these > > >> >> passwords by > > >> >> > > > opening this file. We could (if it is not considered as > > >> unsecured?) > > >> >> print > > >> >> > > > out the filename in the stdout so that the user can click on it > > >> and > > >> >> see the > > >> >> > > > passwords only if some passwords changed. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On 2025/03/21 18:03:19 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > >> >> > > > > Well.. Actually Pierre is quite right. While we have not > > >> intended > > >> >> Simple > > >> >> > > > > Auth Manager for production it **could** be used. > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > However we would have to carefully think what to do with > > >> default > > >> >> > > > passwords > > >> >> > > > > etc. Currently a lot of warnings in CodeQL were about > > "writing > > >> >> sensitive > > >> >> > > > > information to logs" - and a lot of that is about SAM (nice > > >> >> acronym BTW) > > >> >> > > > > writing the generated passwords to logs and stdout. And I > > >> >> dismissed it as > > >> >> > > > > "Used in tests" for SAM cases. > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > So if we decide to use it, we need to decide how to deal with > > >> the > > >> >> > > > password > > >> >> > > > > generation and default users. We should follow (and this in > > the > > >> >> future > > >> >> > > > will > > >> >> > > > > be even mandated by various regulations like CRA) is "secure > > by > > >> >> default". > > >> >> > > > > Which means that default installation MUST be secure. Once we > > >> >> solve > > >> >> > > > this, I > > >> >> > > > > am fine with using SAM in production > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > J. > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:27 PM Pierre Jeambrun < > > >> >> pierrejb...@gmail.com> > > >> >> > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Is it really wrong to use the SimpleAuthManager in > > >> production ? > > >> >> To my > > >> >> > > > > > knowledge it lacks a lot of features such as user > > management > > >> >> and the > > >> >> > > > > > permission model is really simplistic, but maybe some > > >> >> installations > > >> >> > > > don’t > > >> >> > > > > > need the fancy Auth stuff ? > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Instead of being a scary warning that could be just an info > > >> >> block, with > > >> >> > > > > > details and mention of other Auth Manager in case more use > > >> >> cases need > > >> >> > > > to be > > >> >> > > > > > supported. (Or link to doc etc) > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Also we can easily add a “don’t show again” box or > > something > > >> >> like that, > > >> >> > > > > > stored on the client side and remove the message if chosen > > by > > >> >> the > > >> >> > > > user. (Or > > >> >> > > > > > even a global config setting for all users). > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Fri 21 Mar 2025 at 16:03, Vincent Beck < > > >> vincb...@apache.org> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > This alert can be definitely improved. I do think we > > should > > >> >> have it > > >> >> > > > and > > >> >> > > > > > we > > >> >> > > > > > > should not remove it. If you have some proposals, please > > >> feel > > >> >> free to > > >> >> > > > > > > create a PR, I'll be happy to review. Mentioning the > > other > > >> >> auth > > >> >> > > > managers > > >> >> > > > > > as > > >> >> > > > > > > alternatives is, I think, a great idea. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On 2025/03/21 07:20:26 Amogh Desai wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > Hmmm, I wonder if it can instead be made clearer. > > >> Something > > >> >> like > > >> >> > > > this? > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > *Simple Auth Manager Enabled.* > > >> >> > > > > > > > *The Simple Auth Manager is intended for development > > and > > >> >> testing. > > >> >> > > > If > > >> >> > > > > > > you're > > >> >> > > > > > > > using it in production, ensure that access is > > controlled > > >> >> through > > >> >> > > > other > > >> >> > > > > > > > means. * > > >> >> > > > > > > > *<link some doc>* > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > >> >> > > > > > > > Amogh Desai > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:58 PM Daniel Standish > > >> >> > > > > > > > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I'm saying, sounds confusing! > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:27 AM < > > >> consta...@astronomer.io > > >> >> > > > .invalid> > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Sounds great! Do we have something in the config > > >> linter > > >> >> to > > >> >> > > > > > highlight > > >> >> > > > > > > this > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > change? > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2025, at 11:19 PM, Daniel Standish > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It says this: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Development-only auth manager configured > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The auth manager configured in your environment > > is > > >> >> the Simple > > >> >> > > > > > Auth > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Manager, > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > which is intended for development use only. It is > > >> not > > >> >> > > > suitable > > >> >> > > > > > for > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > production and should not be used in a production > > >> >> > > > environment. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:48 AM Jarek Potiuk < > > >> >> > > > ja...@potiuk.com > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> What's the alert - at least for me it did not > > get > > >> >> through > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:33 PM Daniel Standish > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> I should add, the import here is, many users > > who > > >> >> never > > >> >> > > > > > customized > > >> >> > > > > > > > > auth > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> before will now see this message and not really > > >> >> have a clue > > >> >> > > > > > what > > >> >> > > > > > > they > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > are > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to do, and I think it will probably > > >> create > > >> >> a good > > >> >> > > > > > > amount of > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> confusion. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:27 AM Daniel > > Standish > > >> < > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I just saw this when spinning up airflow > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [image: image.png] > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think the message is confusing / misleading > > / > > >> >> not very > > >> >> > > > > > > helpful. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> There's nothing necessarily wrong with having > > >> >> simple auth > > >> >> > > > or > > >> >> > > > > > no > > >> >> > > > > > > auth > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> you control access some other way. Moreover > > we > > >> >> don't tell > > >> >> > > > > > users > > >> >> > > > > > > > > what > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> they > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> should do instead! > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> So I think we should either remove this bubble > > >> or > > >> >> add more > > >> >> > > > > > > nuance > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> point them in a direction that will lead them > > to > > >> >> what we > > >> >> > > > *do* > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > recommend. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > >> >> dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > >> >> dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > >> dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > -- > > >> >> > > Bugra Ozturk > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
