Open Stack

Thanks David.

Since we are discussing authorization and access control, I would like to gain little attention on the below bug which basically propose authorization check on  identity:check_token, identity:validate_token and identity:revoke_token APIs
 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1186059

Due to absence of a target on such API calls Auth is  not possible, I would appreciate community's thoughts on the bug.  

Thanks,
Arvind




-----Original Message-----
From: David Chadwick [mailto:d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:10 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Cc: Tiwari, Arvind
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Extending policy checking to include target entities

I have responded to your post, as I dont think it solves the identified 
problem

regards

David

On 24/07/2013 23:26, Tiwari, Arvind wrote:
> I have added my proposal @ https://etherpad.openstack.org/api_policy_on_target.
>
> Thanks,
> Arvind
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Nash [mailto:henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:46 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Extending policy checking to include target entities
>
> I think we should transfer this discussion to the etherpad for this blueprint: https://etherpad.openstack.org/api_policy_on_target
>
> I have summarised the views of this thread there already, so let's make any further comments there, rather than here.
>
> Henry
> On 24 Jul 2013, at 00:29, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 23:47 +0100, Henry Nash wrote:
>>> ...the problem is that if the object does not exists we might not be able tell whether the use is authorized or not (since authorization might depend on attributes of the object itself)....so how do we know wether to lie or not?
>>
>> If the error you return is always 'Not Found', why do you care ?
>>
>> Simo.
>>
>>> Henry
>>> On 23 Jul 2013, at 21:23, David Chadwick wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23/07/2013 19:02, Henry Nash wrote:
>>>>> One thing we could do is:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Return Forbidden or NotFound if we can determine the correct answer
>>>>> - When we can't (i.e. the object doesn't exist), then return NotFound
>>>>> unless a new config value 'policy_harden' (?) is set to true (default
>>>>> false) in which case we translate NotFound into Forbidden.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure that this achieves your objective of no data leakage through error codes, does it?
>>>>
>>>> Its not a question of determining the correct answer or not, its a question of whether the user is authorised to see the correct answer or not
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry
>>>>> On 23 Jul 2013, at 18:31, Adam Young wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/23/2013 12:54 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
>>>>>>> When writing a previous ISO standard the approach we took was as follows
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lie to people who are not authorised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that your verbage?  I am going to reuse that quote, and I would
>>>>>> like to get the attribution correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So applying this approach to your situation, you could reply Not
>>>>>>> Found to people who are authorised to see the object if it had
>>>>>>> existed but does not, and Not Found to those not authorised to see
>>>>>>> it, regardless of whether it exists or not. In this case, only those
>>>>>>> who are authorised to see the object will get it if it exists. Those
>>>>>>> not authorised cannot tell the difference between objects that dont
>>>>>>> exist and those that do exist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, to try and apply this to a semi-real example:  There are two types
>>>>>> of URLs.  Ones that are like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> users/55FEEDBABECAFE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and ones like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> domain/66DEADBEEF0000/users/55FEEDBABECAFE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the first case, you are selecting against a global collection, and
>>>>>> in the second, against a scoped collection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For unscoped, you have to treat all users as equal, and thus a 404
>>>>>> probably makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a scoped collection we could return a 404 or a 403 Forbidden
>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_403> based on the users
>>>>>> credentials:  all resources under domain/66DEADBEEF0000  would show up
>>>>>> as 403s regardless of existantce or not if the user had no roles in
>>>>>> the domain 66DEADBEEF0000.  A user that would be allowed access to
>>>>>> resources in 66DEADBEEF0000  would get a 403 only for an object that
>>>>>> existed but that they had no permission to read, and 404 for a
>>>>>> resource that doesn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/07/2013 16:40, Henry Nash wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As part of bp
>>>>>>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/policy-on-api-target
>>>>>>>> I have uploaded some example WIP code showing a proposed approach
>>>>>>>> for just a few API calls (one easy, one more complex). I'd
>>>>>>>> appreciate early feedback on this before I take it any further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/38308/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A couple of points:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - One question is on how to handle errors when you are going to get
>>>>>>>> a target object before doing you policy check.  What do you do if
>>>>>>>> the object does not exist?  If you return NotFound, then someone,
>>>>>>>> who was not authorized  could troll for the existence of entities by
>>>>>>>> seeing whether they got NotFound or Forbidden. If however, you
>>>>>>>> return Forbidden, then users who are authorized to, say, manage
>>>>>>>> users in a domain would aways get Forbidden for objects that didn't
>>>>>>>> exist (since we can know where the non-existant object was!).  So
>>>>>>>> this would modify the expected return codes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - I really think we need some good documentation on how to bud
>>>>>>>> keystone policy files.  I'm happy to take a first cut as such a
>>>>>>>> thing - what do you think the right place is for such documentation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>