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
