[openstack-dev] [oslo.utils] allow strutils.mask_password to mask keys dynamically
openstack at nemebean.com
Tue Apr 7 17:33:58 UTC 2015
On 03/20/2015 11:43 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Matthew Van Dijk's message of 2015-03-20 15:06:08 +0000:
>> I’ve come across a use case for allowing dynamic keys to be made
>> secret. The hardcoded list is good for common keys, but there will be
>> cases where masking a custom value is useful without having to add it
>> to the hardcoded list.
> Can you be more specific about what that case is?
> My concern with making some keys optional is that we'll have different
> security behavior in different apps, because some will mask values
> that are not masked in other places. Part of the point of centralizing
> behaviors like this is to keep them consistent across all of the
I think I may have been the first to suggest this way back when, and at
the time my thought was that it's weird for consumers of a library to
have to push a change into the library itself for things that might be
pretty specific to their application.
That said, the oslo libs are not entirely normal in this respect.
They're also an opinionated set of modules that make it easy to do
things "The OpenStack Way", so in that respect I agree that it's
probably good to keep the list of masked keys the same across applications.
So I think at this point I'm backing off my stance that this is
something we _should_ do for sure, and will take the view that it's
something we _could_ do if a compelling argument is made.
>> I propose we add an optional parameter that is a list of secret_keys
>> whose values will be masked.
>> There is concern that this will lead to differing levels of security.
>> But I disagree as either the message will be masked before passing on
>> or mask_password will be called. In this case the developer should be
>> aware of the incoming data and manually mask it.
>> Keeping with a hardcoded list discourages use of the function.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev