Hi Tina, Thanks for the KIP! Looks good overall. A few minor thoughts:
1. We can remove the "This page is meant as a template for writing a KIP" section from the beginning. 2. The type of the allowed.paths property is string in the KIP, but the description mentions it'll contain multiple comma-separated paths. Shouldn't it be described as a list? Or are we calling it a string in order to allow for escape syntax for directories that may contain the delimiter character (e.g., ',')? 3. I'm guessing the answer is yes but I want to make sure--will users be allowed to specify files in the allowed.paths property? 4. Again, guessing the answer is yes but to make sure--if a directory is specified in the allowed.paths property, will all files (nested or otherwise) be accessible by the config provider? E.g., if I set allowed.paths to "/", then everything on the entire file system would be accessible, instead of just the files directly inside the root directory. Cheers, Chris On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 9:33 AM Gantigmaa Selenge <gsele...@redhat.com> wrote: > Thank you Mickael. > > I'm going to leave the discussion thread open for a couple more days and if > there are no further comments, I would like to start the vote for this KIP. > > Thanks. > Regards, > Tina > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 10:06 AM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm not aware of any other mechanisms to explore the filesystem. If > > you have ideas, please reach out to the security list. > > > > Thanks, > > Mickael > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:05 PM Gantigmaa Selenge <gsele...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > Apologies for the very delayed response. Thank you both for the > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > For clarity it might make sense to mention this feature will be > useful > > > > > > when using a ConfigProvider with Kafka Connect as providers are set in > > > > > > the runtime and can then be used by connectors. This feature has no > > > > > > use when using a ConfigProvider in server.properties or in clients. > > > > > > > > > I have updated the KIP to address this suggestion. Please let me know > if > > > it's not clear enough. > > > > > > > > > > When trying to use a path not allowed, you propose returning an > error. > > > > > > With Connect does that mean the connector will be failed? The > > > > > > EnvVarConfigProvider returns empty string in case a user tries to > > > > > > access an environment variable not allowed. I wonder if we should > > > > > > follow the same pattern so the behavior is "consistent" across all > > > > > > built-in providers. > > > > > > > > > I agree with this, it makes sense to have consistent behaviour across > all > > > the providers. I made this update. > > > > > > > > > > 1. In the past Connect removed the FileStream connectors in order to > > > > > > prevent a REST API attacker from accessing the filesystem. Is this the > > > > > > only remaining attack vector for reading the file system? Meaning, if > > > > > > this feature is configured and all custom plugins are audited for > > > > > > filesystem accesses, would someone with access to the REST API be > > > > > > unable to access arbitrary files on disk? > > > > > > > > > Once this feature is configured, it will stop someone from accessing > the > > > file system via config providers. > > > > > > However, I’m not sure whether there are other ways users can access > file > > > systems via REST API. > > > > > > > > > Mickael, perhaps you have some thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > > > 2. Could you explain how this feature would prevent a path traversal > > > > > > attack, and how we will verify that such attacks are not feasible? > > > > > > > > > The intention is to generate File objects based on the String value > > > provided for allowed.paths and the String path passed to the get() > > function. > > > > > > This would allow validation of path inclusion within the specified > > allowed > > > paths using their corresponding Path objects, rather than doing String > > > comparisons. > > > > > > This hopefully will mitigate the risk of path traversal. The > > implementation > > > should include unit tests to verify this. > > > > > > > > > > 3. This applies a single "allowed paths" to a whole worker, but I've > > > > > > seen situations where preventing one connector from accessing > > > > > > another's secrets may also be desirable. Is there any way to extend > > > > > > this feature now or in the future to make that possible? > > > > > > > > > One approach could be creating multiple providers, each assigned a > unique > > > name and specific allowed.paths configuration. Users would then be > > assigned > > > a provider name, granting them appropriate access on the file system to > > > load variables for their connectors. However, during provider > > > configuration, administrators would have to anticipate and specify the > > > files and directories users may require access to. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tina > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 7:49 PM Greg Harris > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Tina, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! Unrestricted file system access over a REST API > is > > > > an unfortunate anti-pattern, so I'm glad that you're trying to change > > > > it. I had a few questions, mostly from the Connect perspective. > > > > > > > > 1. In the past Connect removed the FileStream connectors in order to > > > > prevent a REST API attacker from accessing the filesystem. Is this > the > > > > only remaining attack vector for reading the file system? Meaning, if > > > > this feature is configured and all custom plugins are audited for > > > > filesystem accesses, would someone with access to the REST API be > > > > unable to access arbitrary files on disk? > > > > 2. Could you explain how this feature would prevent a path traversal > > > > attack, and how we will verify that such attacks are not feasible? > > > > 3. This applies a single "allowed paths" to a whole worker, but I've > > > > seen situations where preventing one connector from accessing > > > > another's secrets may also be desirable. Is there any way to extend > > > > this feature now or in the future to make that possible? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 7:06 AM Mickael Maison < > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tina, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > For clarity it might make sense to mention this feature will be > > useful > > > > > when using a ConfigProvider with Kafka Connect as providers are set > > in > > > > > the runtime and can then be used by connectors. This feature has no > > > > > use when using a ConfigProvider in server.properties or in clients. > > > > > > > > > > When trying to use a path not allowed, you propose returning an > > error. > > > > > With Connect does that mean the connector will be failed? The > > > > > EnvVarConfigProvider returns empty string in case a user tries to > > > > > access an environment variable not allowed. I wonder if we should > > > > > follow the same pattern so the behavior is "consistent" across all > > > > > built-in providers. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Mickael > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:52 PM Gantigmaa Selenge < > > gsele...@redhat.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any comments on the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will leave it for a few more days. If there are still no > > comments, I > > > > will > > > > > > start the vote on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tina > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:31 AM Gantigmaa Selenge < > > gsele...@redhat.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-933 that proposes > > > > restricting > > > > > > > files accessed by File and Directory ConfigProviders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-993%3A+Allow+restricting+files+accessed+by+File+and+Directory+ConfigProviders > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Tina > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
