Not all of them are OK to be printed out. At the very least, we should have
a mechanism to exclude some of them. I would still go with opt-in rather
than opt-out though, but I guess that is up to a discussion.

-Val

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:29 AM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is security through obscurity, an obvious and a well-known anti
> pattern. I suppose that printing jvm options, that is registered by
> @IgniteSystemProperty annotation is an ideal variant
>
> чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 19:25 Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > *Anything* that a user provides to the system can potentially be
> considered
> > sensitive information. This includes the VM arguments. We can't predict
> > what exactly one can put there, so let's not make assumptions.
> >
> > When dealing with security, we should be as conservative as possible.
> That
> > said, I do not even agree with the pattern approach - there might be a
> > user's system property named IGNITE_xxx. It is also possible for our
> > internal properties to contain sensitive information (not all of them are
> > boolean flags).
> >
> > The only option I see is to print out specific properties for which we
> > agree that they are safe. For example, we can introduce an annotation
> that
> > would mark "safe" properties in IgniteSystemProperties; we will then
> print
> > out only those that are marked with the annotation.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 7:07 AM Вячеслав Коптилин <
> slava.kopti...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Ivan,
> > >
> > > > At least, we could just hide params that match a specific pattern
> > > Yes, we can filter out all vm options that do not relate to Ignite, for
> > > instance.
> > >
> > > > Ilya, go ahead, file ticket and prepare a PR.
> > > Please do not rush. Let's listen to other community members. This
> > question
> > > is about security and it should not be discussed in a hurry (even
> though
> > it
> > > looks like an obvious thing).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > S.
> > >
> > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г. в 16:55, Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > I suppose, that all normal users should not suffer from this
> > > restrictions.
> > > > Nobody will pass password using jvm options. It is absolutely insane,
> > > > normal users pass passwords using environment variables.
> > > >
> > > > At least, we could just hide params that match specific pattern
> > > >
> > > > Ilya, go ahead, file ticket and prepare a PR.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 1 июл. 2021 г., 16:45 Вячеслав Коптилин <
> slava.kopti...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, the user can pass its own system properties via JVM
> > > > options
> > > > > as follows: -DMY_SECRET_PASSWORD=123
> > > > > It does not seem, this approach is the best one. However, the user
> > > should
> > > > > have a "kostyl" in order to hide these properties and values in the
> > log
> > > > > file, IMHO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > S.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 30 июн. 2021 г. в 22:52, Shishkov Ilya <shishkovi...@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This feature [1, 2] prevents logging of the VM arguments when
> > > > > > IGNITE_TO_STRING_INCLUDE_SENSITIVE option is set to false. Till
> > now,
> > > > > method
> > > > > > IgniteKernal#ackVmArguments remains mostly the same [3].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this behaviour actual now? Often, we should be able to get
> from
> > > logs
> > > > > the
> > > > > > actual VM options used at startup even if output of sensitive
> data
> > is
> > > > > > restricted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4991
> > > > > > 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2428/commits/4f90b6fd77bd23fa818620f0757b792ba388ef93
> > > > > > 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/IgniteKernal.java#L3002
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to