I think that part of the challenge goes to the deeper issue that configuring Solr isn’t easy. We don’t really have the concept of a environment specific settings file. I’d love to see a -env=production.yml or -env=development.yml type file that was the single place for all settings, and had sane defaults for each environment. Something that worked across Docker, classic installed service, or just via a bin/solr start command line ;-).
I am constantly finding new command line config options that I didn’t know about ;-) > On May 6, 2021, at 5:58 PM, matthew sporleder <msporle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 5:25 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I'm reaching out to our user community to get opinions on what Solr should >> do to be more secure-by-default. >> >> TL;DR: Solr 9 has better secure-by-defaults, but maybe we should do more >> like have Solr pick some of it's default settings dependent on a new >> env=dev|prod. >> >> I was shown a glimpse of a massive list of Solr servers exposed on the >> public internet by a security researcher. I'm kinda blown away that so >> many people would be so careless. I think Solr could and should run with >> better "secure-by-default" settings. >> >> The situation will be much better in Solr 9 -- and I'll give a shout-out of >> thanks to Rob Muir for helping make this so. Here's a couple prominent >> ones: >> * Solr's Jetty now binds to localhost by default, configurable via >> SOLR_JETTY_HOST. Before 9, you can configure a similar thing in the Jetty >> config files. SOLR-13985 >> * Java's SecurityManager sandbox is enabled by default. -- SOLR-13984. >> This option also exists in Solr since 8.5, toggle-able >> via SOLR_SECURITY_MANAGER_ENABLED. Mostly this prevents the worst of >> security bugs -- RCE. >> >> I wonder if users will promptly set SOLR_JETTY_HOST=0.0.0.0 to get anything >> done? I think so... but it's something, protecting some users. >> >> Perhaps Solr ought to default to requiring a username/password? I've heard >> this suggestion and it's an obvious one even if some of us (me included) >> worry that it would make it too annoying to play with Solr when getting >> started. I think the concerns could be mitigated based on the approach. >> If Solr had an opt-in env=dev setting, for example, then Solr could not >> insist on authentication, whereas a default env=prod would insist. Of >> course the authentication or lack thereof could be explicitly configured or >> disabled at the user's prerogative. What I like about an "env" setting is >> that many other settings could be gated on this as well. >> >> I particularly like the idea of an env=dev|prod setting because a variety >> of settings in Solr could have a default that is dependent on this value. >> In particular I argue that a env=prod should result in Solr's config APIs >> being disabled -- equivalent to -Ddisable.configEdit=true. I believe a >> minority of Solr users actually use these APIs, yet they are frequently a >> step in exploiting weaknesses in Solr. >> >> ~ David Smiley >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > I have also found open solr servers and normally send an email like > "shall I delete your data or wait for you to do it?" > > As solr is primarily an index of other data the primary issue is data > disclosure. Config editing, inserting data, etc are all pretty > secondary. > HTTP Basic Auth with a first-boot-random password is a massively > simple thing built into jetty that will solve 99% of exposed solr > servers. > > secure-by-default will decrease adoption without major east-to-follow > warning messages so tread lightly. _______________________ Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com <http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> | My Free/Busy <http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed <https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw> This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of whether attachments are marked as such.
