+1 for making SslEngineBuilder configurable. This would give implementers a lot more flexibility-- to use key distribution methods that were not files, for example.
best, Colin On Fri, Aug 30, 2019, at 02:03, Rajini Sivaram wrote: > Just to make sure we are on the same page - KIP-383 was written before > the > code was refactored. The refactoring addressed some of the concerns of > KIP-383. My suggestion was to make SslEngineBuilder configurable. The > default implementation of this pluggable class would be > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/common/security/ssl/SslEngineBuilder.java. > That should give an idea of the size of the configurable part that a > custom > class needs to implement. A large part of that is about loading > keystore/truststore. I agree it has slightly more code than KIP-486 > proposes, but since it lets you customize creation of SSLEngine, it > would > address every possible scenario. > > Thoughts? > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:02 AM Maulin Vasavada <maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I thought about it more. I feel that no matter how we refactor the code > > (with or without KIP-383 integrated), ultimately the need of customizing > > loading for keys and certs will still remain. Whenever that need arises we > > might end up thinking about the solution suggested by our KIP-486. Hence > > regardless of the other KIPs and configurations "if we do need to customize > > loading of keys/certs, we will need the code changes suggested by this > > KIP". > > > > Let me know what you guys think. > > > > Harsha, we are working on changing the interfaces for key/trust store > > loaders with Certificate and PrivateKey objects. Will probably be able to > > update it later today or tomorrow. > > > > Thanks > > Maulin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:30 PM Maulin Vasavada <maulin.vasav...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On that, I actually looked at KIP-383 before briefly. However, that > > > sounded like lot of changes suggested. > > > > > > One "key" thing we have to keep in mind is - IF we need lot of > > > customization Kafka already allows you to use your SslProvider via > > > ssl.providers or the changes done by KIP-492 and > > > SSLContext.getInstance(protocol, provider) call allows us to return the > > > SSLContext with "ALL" the details we would like to customize. Hence I am > > > not sure that customization suggested by KIP-383 would be worth the > > effort. > > > We also have similar SSLContext customization outside of Kafka. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Maulin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:47 PM Pellerin, Clement < > > > clement_pelle...@ibi.com> wrote: > > > > > >> KIP-383 in its present form was vetoed because it was not possible to > > add > > >> validation of custom properties in a future KIP. The solution to that is > > >> the first proposal I wrote for KIP-383 which made the whole SslFactory > > >> pluggable. That first solution was also vetoed hence the deadlock. > > >> > > >> Replacing the whole factory was a much nicer solution. It was vetoed > > >> because doing this almost invariably meant the replacement lost all the > > >> complex validation code in the default SslFactory. > > >> > > >> My current idea is to extract the validation code into another public > > API > > >> that SslFactory would call. I did not look at the newly refactored code > > and > > >> I did not study how to do this yet. KIP-383 was not popular at the time > > and > > >> designing a new solution is a lot of work. > > >> > > >> Is there interest from 3 binding voters for something like this? > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Rajini Sivaram [mailto:rajinisiva...@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 2:57 PM > > >> To: dev > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-486 Support for pluggable KeyStore and > > >> TrustStore > > >> > > >> Hi Maulin, > > >> > > >> In SSL scenarios, I imagine security providers introduced by KIP-492 are > > >> likely to be most useful when you want to use third party providers. The > > >> biggest advantage of the config from that KIP is that you don't need to > > >> write much code to integrate existing security providers into Kafka > > >> brokers > > >> or clients. As I understand it, KIP-486 is a more convenient option for > > >> the > > >> specific problem of loading keystores/truststores differently. It can be > > >> achieved in theory with KIP-492, but KIP-486 is a much simpler option > > for > > >> this case. > > >> > > >> My concern about KIP-486 is that it introduces yet another interface > > into > > >> our already complex security code, while only solving one particular use > > >> case. Have you looked at > > >> > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-383%3A++Pluggable+interface+for+SSL+Factory > > >> ? > > >> The goal was to make > > >> org.apache.kafka.common.security.ssl.SslEngineBuilder pluggable. > > >> The code has already been refactored by Colin after that KIP was > > written, > > >> making it easier to implement KIP-383. This should enable you to load > > your > > >> keystores and truststores differently. Using a pluggable > > SslEngineBuilder > > >> will also solve several other use cases at the same time. KIP-383 hasn't > > >> been voted through yet, but perhaps you could take a look and we could > > >> revive that instead if it solves your use case as well? > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> > > >> Rajini > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:42 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Harsha > > >> > > > >> > Thank you. Appreciate your time and support on this. Let me go back do > > >> some > > >> > more research and get back to you on the KeyStore interface part. > > >> > Basically, if we return certs and keys in the interface then Kafka > > code > > >> > will have to build KeyStore object - which is also reasonable. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks > > >> > Maulin > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:01 AM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Maulin, > > >> > > Use cases are clear now. I am +1 for moving > > >> forward > > >> > > with the discussions on having such configurable option for users. > > But > > >> > the > > >> > > interfaces is proposed doesn't look right to me. We are still > > talking > > >> > about > > >> > > keystore interfaces. Given keystore's are used as filebased way of > > >> > > transporting certificates I am not sure it will help the rest of the > > >> > > user-base. > > >> > > In short, I am +1 on the KIP's motivation and only > > >> have > > >> > > questions around returning keystores instead of returning certs, > > >> private > > >> > > keys etc. . If others in the community are ok with such interface we > > >> can > > >> > > move forward. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Harsha > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:51 PM, Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > As we synced-up offline on this topic, we hope you don't have any > > >> more > > >> > > > clarifications that you are seeking. If that is the case, can you > > >> > please > > >> > > > help us move this forward and discuss what changes you would > > expect > > >> on > > >> > > the > > >> > > > KIP design in order to make it valuable contribution? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Just FYI - we verified our primary design change with the author > > of > > >> > Sun's > > >> > > > X509 Trustmanager implementation and the outcome is that what we > > are > > >> > > > proposing makes sense at the heart of it - "Instead of writing > > >> > > TrustManager > > >> > > > just plugin the Trust store". We are open to discuss additional > > >> changes > > >> > > > that you/anybody else would like to see on the functionality > > >> however. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:12 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Any response on my question? I feel this KIP is worth > > accommodating. > > >> > Your > > >> > > > help is much appreciated. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:52 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > maulin.vasavada@gmail. > > >> > > > com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I've examined the SPIFFE provider more and have one question - > > >> > > > > > >> > > > If SPIFFE didn't have a need to do checkSpiffeId() call at the > > below > > >> > > > location, would you really still write the Provider? *OR* Would > > you > > >> > just > > >> > > > use TrustManagerFactory.init(KeyStore) signature to pass the > > >> KeyStore > > >> > > from > > >> > > > set of certs returned by spiffeIdManager. getTrustedCerts()? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/ > > >> > > > provider/CertificateUtils.java#L100 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > /** > > >> > > > > > >> > > > * Validates that the SPIFFE ID is present and matches the SPIFFE > > ID > > >> > > > configured in > > >> > > > * the java.security property ssl.spiffe.accept > > >> > > > * > > >> > > > * If the authorized spiffe ids list is empty any spiffe id is > > >> > authorized > > >> > > > * > > >> > > > * @param chain an array of X509Certificate that contains the > > Peer's > > >> > SVID > > >> > > > to be validated > > >> > > > * @throws CertificateException when either the certificates > > doesn't > > >> > have > > >> > > a > > >> > > > SPIFFE ID or the SPIFFE ID is not authorized > > >> > > > */ > > >> > > > static void checkSpiffeId(X509Certificate[] chain) throws > > >> > > > CertificateException { > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:49 PM Harsha Chintalapani < > > >> ka...@harsha.io> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Maulin, > > >> > > > The code parts you are pointing are specific for Spiffe and if > > >> > > > you are talking about validate method which uses PKIX check like > > any > > >> > > other > > >> > > > provider does. > > >> > > > If you want to default to SunJSSE everywhere you can do so by > > >> > delegating > > >> > > > the calls in these methods to SunJSSE provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > TrustManagerFactory tmf = TrustManagerFactory > > >> > > > .getInstance(TrustManagerFactory.getDefaultAlgorithm());and use > > >> > > > tmf.chekServerTrusted() > > >> > > > or use > > >> > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/net/ssl/ > > >> > > > TrustManagerFactory.html#getInstance(java.lang.String)if you want > > a > > >> > > > specific provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:26 PM, Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > maulin.vasavada@gmail. > > >> > > > com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Okay, so I take that you guys agree that I have to write a > > 'custom' > > >> > > > algorithm and a provider to make it work , correct? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Now, for Harsha's comment "Here the 'Custom' Algorithm is not an > > >> > > > implementation per say , ..." , I diagree. You can refer to > > https:// > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/provider/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > SpiffeTrustManager.java#L91 <http://spiffetrustmanager.java/#L91> > > >> and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider/CertificateUtils.java#L100 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "that code" is the customization you have for the custom way to > > >> check > > >> > > > something on top of regular checks. That method is NOT doing > > custom > > >> > > > truststore loading. It is validating/verifying something in the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "custom" > > >> > > > > > >> > > > way with spiffeId. > > >> > > > I bet that without that you won't have a need of the custom > > >> algorithm > > >> > > > > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the first place. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Let me know if you agree to this. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:08 PM Sandeep Mopuri <mpr...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Maulin, thanks for the discussion. As Harsha pointed out, to > > use > > >> the > > >> > > > KIP492, you need to create a new provider, register a *new* custom > > >> > > > algorithm for your keymanager and trustmanager factory > > >> implementations. > > >> > > > After this, the kafka server configuration can be done as given > > >> below > > >> > > > > > >> > > > # Register the provider class with custom algorithm, say CUSTOM > > >> > > > > > >> > > > security. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider.classes=com.company.security.CustomProvider > > >> > > > <http://provider.classes=com.company.security.customprovider/> > > >> > > > <http://security.provider.classes > > >> > > > > > >> > > > =com.company.security.customprovider/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > # Register the keymanager and trustmanager algorithms > > >> > > > # These algorithms indicate that the Keymanager and Trustmanagers > > >> > > > registered under the algorithm "CUSTOM" needs to be used > > >> > > > ssl.trustmanager.algorithm=CUSTOM > > >> > > > ssl.keymanager.algorithm=CUSTOM > > >> > > > > > >> > > > And the customprovider looks like this... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > public class CustomProvider extends Provider { > > >> > > > public CustomProvider() { > > >> > > > super("NEW_CUSTOM_PROVIDER", 0.1, "Custom KeyStore and > > TrustStore"); > > >> > > > super.put("KeyManagerFactory.CUSTOM", "customKeyManagerFactory"); > > >> > > > super.put("TrustManagerFactory.CUSTOM", > > >> > > > "customTrustManagerFactory"); > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The PR for this is in review and can be found here: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > apache/kafka/pull/7090 > > >> > > > This PR includes the fixed insertProviderAt function call. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Harsha Chintalapani < > > >> ka...@harsha.io> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Answers are in-line > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:45 PM, Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasavada@gmail. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > com > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Colin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > When I refer to "standard" or "custom" algorithms I am following > > >> Java > > >> > > > security Provider Terminology. You can refer to > > >> > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/ > > >> > > > StandardNames.html#TrustManagerFactory link I provided earlier in > > >> the > > >> > > > emails. It says PKIX is the default Algorithm for > > >> TrustManagerFactory. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. For SPIFFE, I am not sure why you are saying 'it does not > > >> implement > > >> > > > custom algorithms' because the following file clearly indicates > > >> that it > > >> > > > does use custom algorithm- > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider/SpiffeProvider.java#L17 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Algorithm value: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider/SpiffeProviderConstants.java#L6 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > @Harsha do you want to chime in since you use that provider? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Here the "Custom" Algorithm is not an implementation per say , > > >> rather > > >> > > > > > >> > > > used > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to invoke the custom trust store factory and key manager factory. > > >> You > > >> > > > > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > > > >> > > > not moving away from "standard" alogrithms that are available. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/java-spiffe/blob/master/src/main/java/spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider/SpiffeTrustManager.java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > As you can see it delegates all the calls of verification of > > >> > > > > > >> > > > certificate > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the default implementation available. > > >> > > > So in our implementation we still use PKIX to verify the > > certificate > > >> > > > chain. So you are not losing anything here and Spiffe is not > > >> > > > > > >> > > > reimplementing > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the verification process. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. I already mentioned in my 3rd point, in my previous post, why > > >> using > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ssl.provider does NOT work. I updated KIP-486 in "rejected > > >> > > > > > >> > > > alternatives" > > >> > > > > > >> > > > also why ssl.provider does not work. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > As mentioned before , provider is the right way to go. I am still > > >> not > > >> > > > understanding the gap is. > > >> > > > If I understand correctly your argument is , provider is going to > > >> ask > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > implement a custom algorithm. > > >> > > > My answer to that is , no you are not re-implementing the > > algorithm. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Please > > >> > > > > > >> > > > check the above link , TrustManager implementation it delegates > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > calls > > >> > > > > > >> > > > back. There is no need to implement your own here. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 3. Security.insertProviderAt() comments were based on assumption > > if > > >> > > > > > >> > > > KIP-492 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > changes are done and we use that mechanism to configure providers > > >> > > > > > >> > > > instead > > >> > > > > > >> > > > of ssl.provider configuration. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > KIP-492 has patch available and going through review. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Can you read my all the points, I mentioned in my previous post, > > >> very > > >> > > > > > >> > > > carefully? I am covering all the aspects in explaining. I am open > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > still > > >> > > > > > >> > > > discuss more to clarify any doubts. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "3. If we just use existing ssl.provider kafka configuration then > > >> our > > >> > > > provider will be used in SSLContext.getInstance(protocol, > > provider) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > call > > >> > > > > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > > > >> > > > SslFactory.java <http://sslfactory.java/> < > > http://sslfactory.java/> > > >> < > > >> > > > http://sslfactory.java/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > if our provider does not have > > >> > > > implementation for SSLContext.TLS/TLSv1.1/TLSv1.2 etc it breaks > > (we > > >> > > > > > >> > > > tested > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it). Example: In MyProvider sample above you see that I didn't add > > >> > > > SSLContext.TLSv1 as > > >> > > > "Service+Algorithm" and that didn't work for me. In SPIFFE > > provider > > >> you > > >> > > > don't have this challenge since you are planning to bypass > > >> ssl.provider > > >> > > > > > >> > > > as > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you mention in the KIP-492." > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Yes here you need to pass the protocol that your > > >> > > > > > >> > > > KeyManager/TrustManager > > >> > > > > > >> > > > registered with and in no way its deviating from TLS RFC spec. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/srisatish/openjdk/blob/master/jdk/src/share/classes/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > javax/net/ssl/SSLContext.java#L134 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > My suggestion here is for you to implement a simple Security > > >> Provider > > >> > > > > > >> > > > as > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you did before and register a Algorithm. You can use the existing > > >> > > > implementation in SpiffeProvider and plug in changes where you > > need > > >> to > > >> > > > retrieve the certificates from by making RPC call. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Run an end-to-end test with Kafka broker coming up with your > > >> provider > > >> > > > making calls to RPC call. You do need to pass the "custom > > algorithm" > > >> > > > > > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you registered in your key manager to invoke the provider. I think > > >> your > > >> > > > concern is this approach is replacing the existing known > > >> ciphersuites > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > certificate validation provided by java. Which its not. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Now test the TLS connection you can do so via openssl -s_client > > >> options > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > test if everything else is working. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I am happy to share configs that we used if you are interested. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 9:52 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Maulin, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > A lot of JSSE providers don't implement custom algorithms. Spire > > is > > >> a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > good > > >> > > > > > >> > > > example of a JSSE provider that doesn't, and yet is still useful > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > many > > >> > > > > > >> > > > people. Your JSSE provider can work fine even if it doesn't > > >> implement a > > >> > > > custom algorithm. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the discussion > > >> of > > >> > > > Security.insertProviderAt() that you included. SslEngineBuilder > > >> doesn't > > >> > > > > > >> > > > use > > >> > > > > > >> > > > that API to get the security provider. Instead, it calls > > >> > > > "SSLContext.getInstance(protocol, provider)", where provider is > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > name > > >> > > > > > >> > > > of the provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > best, > > >> > > > Colin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019, at 20:13, Maulin Vasavada wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On top of everything above I feel strongly to add the 4th point > > >> which > > >> > > > > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > > > >> > > > based on Java APIs for TrustManagerFactory.init(KeyStore) ( > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/net/ssl/ > > >> > > > TrustManagerFactory.html#init(java.security.KeyStore > > >> > > > <http://java.security.keystore/> > > >> > > > <http://java.security.keystore/>) > > >> > > > ) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and KeyManagerFactory.init(KeyStore, char[]) ( > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/net/ssl/KeyManagerFactory > > >> > > > . > > >> > > > > > >> > > > html#init(java.security.KeyStore <http://java.security.keystore/> > > >> > > <http:// > > >> > > > java.security.keystore/ > > >> > > > ,%20char[]) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 4. The above APIs are intended to support providing "trust/key > > >> > > > > > >> > > > material" > > >> > > > > > >> > > > from the user without having to write their own > > >> > > > > > >> > > > TrustManager/KeyManagers. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > To quote from the TrustManagerFactory.init()'s documentation > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "Initializes > > >> > > > > > >> > > > this factory with a source of certificate authorities and related > > >> trust > > >> > > > material." > > >> > > > To quote from the KeyManagerFactory.init()'s documentation > > >> "Initializes > > >> > > > this factory with a source of key material." > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Based on this it is clear that there is a flexibility provided by > > >> Java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to enable developers to provide the required trust/key material > > >> loaded > > >> > > > > > >> > > > from > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "anywhere" without requiring them to write custom provider OR > > >> trust/key > > >> > > > managers. This same flexibility is reflected in Kafka code also > > >> where > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it > > >> > > > > > >> > > > loads the trust/keys from a local file and doesn't require > > writing a > > >> > > > Provider necessarily. If we do NOT have a custom algorithm, it > > makes > > >> > > > > > >> > > > less > > >> > > > > > >> > > > sense to write a Provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:45 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Harsha/Colin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I did the sample with a custom Provider for TrustStoreManager and > > >> tried > > >> > > > using ssl.provider Kafka config AND the way KIP-492 is suggesting > > >> (by > > >> > > > adding Provider programmatically instead of relying on > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ssl.provider+java. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > security. The below sample is followed by my detailed findings. > > I'll > > >> > > > appreciate if you can go through it carefully and see > > >> > > > > > >> > > > if you > > >> > > > > > >> > > > see my point. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > package providertest; > > >> > > > > > >> > > > import java.security.Provider <http://java.security.provider/> > > >> > <http:// > > >> > > > java.security.provider/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > <http:// > > >> > > > > > >> > > > java.security.provider/>; > > >> > > > > > >> > > > public class MyProvider extends Provider { > > >> > > > > > >> > > > private static final String name = "MyProvider"; private static > > >> double > > >> > > > version = 1.0d; > > >> > > > private static String info = "Maulin's SSL Provider v"+version; > > >> > > > > > >> > > > public MyProvider() { > > >> > > > super(name, version, info); > > >> > > > this.put("TrustManagerFactory.PKIX", > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "providertest.MyTrustManagerFactory"); > > >> > > > > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > > > >> > > > *Details:* > > >> > > > > > >> > > > KIP-492 documents that it will use Security.addProvider() assuming > > >> it > > >> > > > > > >> > > > will > > >> > > > > > >> > > > add it as position '0' which is not a correct assumption. The > > >> > > > addProvider()'s documentation says it will add it to the last > > >> available > > >> > > > position. You may want to correct that to say > > >> > > > Security.insertProviderAt(provider, 1). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Now coming back to our specific discussion, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. SPIFFE example uses Custom Algorithm - spiffe. Hence when you > > add > > >> > > > > > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider in the provider list via Security.addProvider() the > > >> position > > >> > > > > > >> > > > where > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it gets added doesn't matter (even if you don't end up adding it > > as > > >> > > > > > >> > > > first > > >> > > > > > >> > > > entry) since that is the ONLY provider for SPIFFE specific > > algorithm > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you > > >> > > > > > >> > > > might have. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We do *not* have custom algorithm for Key/Trust StoreMangers. > > Which > > >> > > > > > >> > > > means > > >> > > > > > >> > > > we have to use X509, PKIX etc "Standard Algorithms" (( > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/ > > >> > > > StandardNames.html > > >> > > > )) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > in our provider to override the TrustStoreManager (see my sample > > >> code) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > KeyStoreManger and KeyManager. This creates another challenge > > >> > > > > > >> > > > mentioned in > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the below point. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. In order to make our Provider for loading custom TrustStore > > >> work, we > > >> > > > have to add the provider as 'first' in the list since there are > > >> others > > >> > > > > > >> > > > with > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the same algorithm. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > However, the programatic way of adding provider > > >> > > > (Security.insertProviderAt()) is *not* deterministic for ordering > > >> since > > >> > > > different code can call the method for a different provider and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > depending > > >> > > > > > >> > > > upon the order of the call our provider can be first or pushed > > down > > >> the > > >> > > > list. This can happen very well in any client application using > > >> Kafka. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > This > > >> > > > > > >> > > > is specially problematic for a case when you want to guarantee > > order > > >> > > > > > >> > > > for a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Provider having "Standard Algorithms". > > >> > > > > > >> > > > If we add our provider in java.security file that definitely > > >> guarantees > > >> > > > the order(unless somebody calls removeProvider() which is less > > >> > > > > > >> > > > likely). But > > >> > > > > > >> > > > if we add our provider in java.security file it will defeat the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > purpose of > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the KIP-492. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > In the gist - Apache Kafka must not rely on "un-deterministic" > > >> method > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > rely on Provider ordering. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 3. If we just use existing ssl.provider kafka configuration then > > our > > >> > > > provider will be used in SSLContext.getInstance(protocol, > > provider) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > call in > > >> > > > > > >> > > > SslFactory.java <http://sslfactory.java/> < > > http://sslfactory.java/> > > >> < > > >> > > > http://sslfactory.java/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > if our provider does not have implementation for > > >> > > > SSLContext.TLS/TLSv1.1/TLSv1.2 etc it breaks > > >> > > > > > >> > > > (we > > >> > > > > > >> > > > tested it). Example: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > In > > >> > > > > > >> > > > MyProvider sample above you see that I didn't add SSLContext.TLSv1 > > >> as > > >> > > > "Service+Algorithm" and that didn't work for me. In SPIFFE > > provider > > >> you > > >> > > > don't have this challenge since you are planning to bypass > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ssl.provider as > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you mention in the KIP-492. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > *Overall summary,* > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. Any provider based mechanisms- a) existing ssl.provider and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > b)KIP-492, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > for loading key/trust store using "Standard Algorithms" do not > > work > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. Approach suggested in our KIP-486 works without any issue and > > it > > >> is > > >> > > > *not* our context specific solve > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 3. Based on above we feel KIP-492 and KIP-486 are complimentary > > >> changes > > >> > > > and not contradicting or redundent. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > If you want we can do a joint session somehow to walk through the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > sample I > > >> > > > > > >> > > > have and various experiments I did. I would encourage you to do > > >> similar > > >> > > > exercise by writing a Provider for "Standard Algorithm" for > > >> > > > TrustStoreManager (like our needs) and see what you find since > > only > > >> > > > > > >> > > > writing > > >> > > > > > >> > > > samples can bring out the complexity/challenges we face. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:15 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasavada@gmail. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Just to update - still working on it. Get to work only on and off > > on > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it :( > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:05 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Let me try to write samples and will let you know. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:00 PM Harsha Ch <harsha...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Maulin, > > >> > > > With java security providers can be as custom you would > > >> > > > > > >> > > > like > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it to > > >> > > > be. If you only want to to implement a custom way of loading the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > keystore > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and truststore and not implement any protocol/encryption handling > > >> you > > >> > > > > > >> > > > can > > >> > > > > > >> > > > leave them empty and no need to implement. Have you looked into > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > links I > > >> > > > > > >> > > > pasted before? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeKeyStore. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >> > > > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/ > > >> > > > SpiffeTrustManager.java <http://spiffetrustmanager.java/> > > <http:// > > >> > > > spiffetrustmanager.java/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeProvider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Can you please tell me which methods are too complex in above to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > implement > > >> > > > > > >> > > > or unnecessary? You are changing anything in SSL/TLS > > implementations > > >> > > > provided by > > >> > > > > > >> > > > All of the implementations delegating the checks to the default > > >> > > > implementation anyway. > > >> > > > Spire agent is an example, its nothing but a GRPC server listening > > >> > > > > > >> > > > on a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > unix domain socket . Above code is making a RPC call to the local > > >> > > > > > >> > > > daemon > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > get the certificate and keys. The mechanics are pretty much same > > as > > >> > > > > > >> > > > what > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you are asking for. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:47 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Imagine a scenario like - We know we have a custom KMS and as a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Kafka > > >> > > > > > >> > > > owner > > >> > > > > > >> > > > we want to comply to using that KMS source to load keys/certs. As > > >> > > > > > >> > > > a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Kafka > > >> > > > > > >> > > > owner we know how to integrate with KMS but doesn't necessarily > > >> > > > > > >> > > > have > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > know anything about cipher suites, algorithms, and SSL/TLS > > >> > > > > > >> > > > implementation. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Going the Provider way requires to know lot more than we should, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > isn't it? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Not that we would have concern/shy-away knowing those details - > > >> > > > > > >> > > > but > > >> > > > > > >> > > > if we > > >> > > > > > >> > > > don't have to - why should we? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:23 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We don't have spire (or similar) agents and we do not have > > >> > > > > > >> > > > keys/certs > > >> > > > > > >> > > > locally on any brokers. To elaborate more on my previous email, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I agree that Java security Providers are used in much broader > > >> > > > > > >> > > > sense > > >> > > > > > >> > > > - to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > have a particular implementation of an algorithm, use specific > > >> > > > > > >> > > > cipher > > >> > > > > > >> > > > suites for SSL , OR in our current team's case have a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > particular > > >> > > > > > >> > > > way to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > leverage pre-generated SSL sessions. However, the scope of our > > >> > > > > > >> > > > KIP > > >> > > > > > >> > > > (486) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > > > >> > > > much restricted than that. We merely intend to provide a custom > > >> > > > keystore/truststore for our SSL connections and not really worry > > >> > > > > > >> > > > about > > >> > > > > > >> > > > underlying specific SSL/TLS implementation. This simplifies it > > >> > > > > > >> > > > a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > lot for > > >> > > > > > >> > > > us to keep the concerns separate and clear. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I feel our approach is more complimentary such that it allows > > >> > > > > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > > > >> > > > using > > >> > > > > > >> > > > keystores of choice while retaining the flexibility to use any > > >> > > > underlying/available Provider for actually making the SSL call. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We agree with KIP-492's approach based on Providers (and Java's > > >> > > > recommendation), but also strongly believe that our approach can > > >> > > > > > >> > > > compliment > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it very effectively for reasons explained above. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:05 PM Harsha Chintalapani < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ka...@harsha.io > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Maulin, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 2:04 PM, Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasavada@gmail. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The reason we rejected the SslProvider route is that - we > > >> > > > > > >> > > > only > > >> > > > > > >> > > > needed > > >> > > > > > >> > > > a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > custom way to load keys/certs. Not touch any policy that > > >> > > > > > >> > > > existing > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Providers > > >> > > > > > >> > > > govern like SunJSSE Provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We have exactly the same requirements to load certs and keys > > >> > > > > > >> > > > through > > >> > > > > > >> > > > spire > > >> > > > > > >> > > > agent. We used security.provider to do that exactly. I am not > > >> > > > > > >> > > > sure > > >> > > > > > >> > > > why > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you > > >> > > > > > >> > > > would be modifying any policies provided by default SunJSSE > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Can > > >> > > > > > >> > > > you give me an example of having custom provider that will > > >> > > > > > >> > > > override an > > >> > > > > > >> > > > existing policy in SunJSSE provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > As pointed out earlier, this kip > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > >> > > > KIP-492%3A+Add+java+security+providers+in+Kafka+Security+config > > >> > > > > > >> > > > allows > > >> > > > you to load security.provider through config. > > >> > > > Take a look at the examples I gave before > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeProvider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > It registers KeyManagerFactory and TrustManagerFactory and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Keystore > > >> > > > > > >> > > > algorithm. > > >> > > > Implement your custom way of loading Keystore in here > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeKeyStore. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and Trust manager like here > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >> > > > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/ > > >> > > > SpiffeTrustManager.java <http://spiffetrustmanager.java/> > > <http:// > > >> > > > spiffetrustmanager.java/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > In your Kafka client you can set the security.provider to your > > >> > > > > > >> > > > custom > > >> > > > > > >> > > > implementation and with this fix > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8191 you can set > > >> > > > keyManagerAlgorigthm and trustManagerAlgorithm configs. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > All of this is in your clients and broker side and do not need > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > touch > > >> > > > > > >> > > > any > > >> > > > policy changes at JVM level. You'll register the providers in > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > priority > > >> > > > > > >> > > > order and can still have SunJSSE provider and have your custom > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > implement the key and trust managers. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The ask here is different than KIP-492. We don't have any need > > >> > > > > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > modify/specify the algorithm parameter. Does that make sense? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The ask in KIP is introducing new interfaces where the KIP's > > >> > > > goal/motivation can be achieved through the security.provider > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > > > >> > > > worked > > >> > > > on similar goal without touching any Keystore or Truststore > > >> > > > > > >> > > > interfaces. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > My advise is against changing or introducing new interfaces > > >> > > > > > >> > > > when > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it can > > >> > > > > > >> > > > work through security.provider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Maulin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:48 AM Harsha Chintalapani < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ka...@harsha.io> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > In your KIP you added security. provider as rejected > > >> > > > > > >> > > > alternative > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > specified "its not the correct way". Do you mind explaining > > >> > > > > > >> > > > why > > >> > > > > > >> > > > its > > >> > > > > > >> > > > not? I > > >> > > > > > >> > > > didn't find any evidence in Java docs to say so. Contrary to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > your > > >> > > > > > >> > > > statement > > >> > > > > > >> > > > it does say in the java docs > > >> > > > " However, please note that a provider can be used to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > implement > > >> > > > > > >> > > > any > > >> > > > > > >> > > > security service in Java that uses a pluggable architecture > > >> > > > > > >> > > > with > > >> > > > > > >> > > > a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > choice > > >> > > > > > >> > > > of implementations that fit underneath." > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Java Security Providers have been used by other projects to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provide > > >> > > > > > >> > > > such > > >> > > > > > >> > > > integration . I am not sure if you looked into Spiffe > > >> > > > > > >> > > > project to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > efficiently distribute certificates but here is an example of > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provider > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeProvider. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > java which > > >> > > > obtains certificates from local daemons. > > >> > > > These integrations are being used in Tomcat, Jetty etc.. We > > >> > > > > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > > > >> > > > also > > >> > > > > > >> > > > using > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Security provider to do the same in our Kafka clusters. So > > >> > > > > > >> > > > unless I > > >> > > > > > >> > > > see > > >> > > > > > >> > > > more evidence why security.provider doesn't work for you > > >> > > > > > >> > > > adding > > >> > > > > > >> > > > new > > >> > > > > > >> > > > interfaces while there exists more cleaner way of achieving > > >> > > > > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > goals > > >> > > > > > >> > > > of > > >> > > > > > >> > > > this KIP is unnecessary and breaks the well known security > > >> > > > > > >> > > > interfaces > > >> > > > > > >> > > > provided by Java itself. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 6:54 AM, Harsha Chintalapani < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ka...@harsha.io > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Maulin, > > >> > > > Not sure if you looked at my previous replies. This > > >> > > > > > >> > > > changes > > >> > > > > > >> > > > are not required as there is already security Provider to do > > >> > > > > > >> > > > what you > > >> > > > > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > > > >> > > > proposing. This KIP > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > KIP-492%3A+Add+java+security+providers+in+Kafka+Security+config > > >> > > > > > >> > > > also > > >> > > > > > >> > > > addresses easy registration of such providers. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Harsha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 11:31 PM, Maulin Vasavada > > >> > > > > > >> > > > <maulin.vasavada@gmail. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Bump! Can somebody please review this? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 1:51 PM Maulin Vasavada < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Bump! Can somebody please review this? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > M.Sai Sandeep > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
