On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, at 03:33, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> I would expect SslEngineBuilder interface to look something like this,
> perhaps with some tweaking:
>
> public interface SslEngineBuilder extends Configurable, Closeable {
>
> Set<String> reconfigurableConfigs();
>
> boolean shouldBeRebuilt(Map<String, Object> nextConfigs);
>
> SSLEngine createSslEngine(Mode mode, String peerHost, int
> peerPort, String endpointIdentification);
>
> }
>
> The existing SslEngineBuilder class would be renamed and will implement
> this interface. Loading of keystore/truststore will be in SslEngineBuilder
> as it is now. The method `shouldBeRebuilt()` will validate configs during
> reconfiguration and decide if reconfiguration is required because keystore
> or truststore changed. SslFactory.reconfigurableConfigs() will return
> SslEngineBuilder.reconfigurableConfigs() as well including any custom
> configs of SslEngineBuilder, so no other changes will be required when we
> eventually support custom SSL configs.
>
> We don't want to make SslFactory the pluggable class since that contains
> validation logic for SSL engines. Everything that we want to customise is
> contained in SslEngineBuilder. Basically custom SslEngineBuilder will
> validate custom configs during reconfiguration and create SSLEngine.
> SslFactory will continue to perform validation of SSLEngines and this will
> not be customizable. SslEngineBuilder will not be reconfigurable, instead
> we create a new builder as we do now to avoid having to deal with
> thread-safety and atomicity of updates. We could consider using a public
> Reconfigurable interface as the pluggable interface for consistency, but I
> think we would still want to create a new Builder on reconfiguration and
> retain non-pluggable SSL engine validation in SslFactory.
+1
C.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:21 PM Maulin Vasavada <maulin.vasav...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Looking at SslFactory and SslEngineBuilder I feel the responsibilities are
> > not clear. Both has public method for createSSLEngine for example. I feel
> > the SslEngineBuilder was created to move out lot of code but it is not
> > necessarily a public class (e.g. I don't think anybody calling
> > SslEngineBuilder separately without SslFactory in between). I am currently
> > inclined toward what Celement is suggesting - having pluggable SslFactory.
> >
> > Let me do this - let me refactor SslFactory and SslEngineBuilder and review
> > what I can come up with you guys. Let us see if we can address all the
> > objections raised previously for KIP-383's iterations. I'll need sometime
> > though. Let me try to do it by next of next week.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Maulin
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:25 PM Pellerin, Clement <
> > clement_pelle...@ibi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What is your solution to the objection that killed the second iteration
> > of
> > > KIP-383?
> > > Mainly, how do you support validation of reconfiguration requests that
> > > involve new custom properties implemented by the pluggable factory?
> > > Custom properties do not exist yet, but that is very legitimate thing to
> > > design for the future.
> > >
> > > That's why I favor a pluggable SslFactory instead of an SslEngineBuilder
> > > factory.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Maulin Vasavada [mailto:maulin.vasav...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:07 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-486 Support for pluggable KeyStore and
> > > TrustStore
> > >
> > > +1 for making SslEngineBuilder configurable upon more thoughts.
> > >
> > > However, in the abstraction and default implementation we should make
> > sure
> > > when we do have a requirement to plugin custom key/trust store people
> > don't
> > > have to write lot more code which may not be related to it.
> > >
> > > Having said that, does this mean, we resurrect KIP-383 and update it with
> > > latest context and go from there?
> > >
> > > We are willing to take up that work for making it configurable.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Maulin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:34 AM Maulin Vasavada <
> > > maulin.vasav...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't we make SSLEngineBuilder code delegate the whole Key/Trust
> > > store
> > > > initialization to the interfaces we are proposing? Default
> > implementation
> > > > for those key/trust store loader interfaces will be "file based"
> > loading
> > > vs
> > > > if somebody wants to customize any of it they can.
> > > >
> > > > Would that make sense?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:03 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +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
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
