Adding my notes from today's call to the thread: ** Deny or Allow all by default? We will add a configuration to control this. The configuration will default to “allow” for backward compatibility. Security admins can set it to "deny"
** Storing ACLs for default authorizers: We'll store them in ZK. We'll support pointing the authorizer to any ZK. The use of ZK will be internal to the default authorizer. Authorizer reads ACLs from cache every hour. We proposed having mechanism (possibly via new ZK node) to tell broker to refresh the cache immediately. ** Support deny as permission type - we agreed to keep this. ** Mapping operations to API: We may need to add Group as a resource, with JoinGroup and OffsetCommit require privilege on the consumer group. This can be something we pass now and authorizers can support in future. - Jay will write specifics to the mailing list discussion. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Following up on the KIP discussion. Two options for authorizing consumers > to read topic "t" as part of group "g": > 1. READ permission on resource /topic/t > 2. READ permission on resource /topic/t AND WRITE permission on /group/g > > The advantage of (1) is that it is simpler. The disadvantage is that any > member of any group that reads from t can commit offsets as any other > member of a different group. This doesn't effect data security (who can > access what) but it is a bit of a management issue--a malicious person can > cause data loss or duplicates for another consumer by committing offset. > > I think I favor (2) but it's worth it to think it through. > > -Jay > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt < > pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> Hey Jun, >> >> Yes and we support wild cards for all acl entities principal, hosts and >> operation. >> >> Thanks >> Parth >> >> On 4/21/15, 9:06 AM, "Jun Rao" <j...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >> >Harsha, Parth, >> > >> >Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. Perhaps we can clarify the >> >meaning of those rules in the wiki. >> > >> >Related to this, it seems that we need to support wildcard in cli/request >> >protocol for topics? >> > >> >Jun >> > >> >On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt < >> >pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> > >> >> The iptables on unix supports the DENY operator, not that it should >> >> matter. The deny operator can also be used to specify ³allow user1 to >> >>READ >> >> from topic1 from all hosts but host1,host2². Again we could add a host >> >> group semantic and extra complexity around that, not sure if its worth >> >>it. >> >> In addition with DENY operator you are now not forced to create a >> >>special >> >> group just to support the authorization use case. I am not convinced >> >>that >> >> the operator it self is really all that confusing. There are 3 practical >> >> use cases: >> >> - Resource with no acl what so ever -> allow access to everyone ( just >> >>for >> >> backward compatibility, I would much rather fail close and force users >> >>to >> >> explicitly grant acls that allows access to all users.) >> >> - Resource with some acl attached -> only users that have a matching >> >>allow >> >> acl are allowed (i.e. ³allow READ access to topic1 to user1 from all >> >> hosts², only user1 has READ access and no other user has access of any >> >> kind) >> >> - Resource with some allow and some deny acl attached -> users are >> >>allowed >> >> to perform operation only when they satisfy allow acl and do not have >> >> conflicting deny acl. Users that have no acl(allow or deny) will still >> >>not >> >> have any access. (i.e. ³allow READ access to topic1 to user1 from all >> >> hosts except host1 and host², only user1 has access but not from host1 >> >>an >> >> host2) >> >> >> >> I think we need to make a decision on deny primarily because with >> >> introduction of acl management API, Acl is now a public class that will >> >>be >> >> used by Ranger/Santry and other authroization providers. In Current >> >>design >> >> the acl has a permissionType enum field with possible values of Allow >> >>and >> >> Deny. If we chose to remove deny we can assume all acls to be of allow >> >> type and remove the permissionType field completely. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Parth >> >> >> >> On 4/20/15, 6:12 PM, "Gwen Shapira" <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >I think thats how its done in pretty much any system I can think of. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>
