Open Stack

On 05/12/2016 09:07 AM, Edmund Rhudy (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK) wrote:
> +1 on desiring OAuth-style tokens in Keystone. The use cases that come 
> up here are people wanting to be able to execute jobs that use the 
> APIs (Jenkins, Terraform, Vagrant, etc.) without having to save their 
> personal credentials in plaintext somewhere, and also wanting to be 
> able to associate credentials with a project instead of a specific 
> person, so that if a person leaves or rotates their password it 
> doesn't blow up their team's carefully crafted automation.
> We can sort of work around it with LDAP service accounts as mentioned 
> previously, but the concern around those is the lack of speedy 
> revocability in the event of a compromise, and the service accounts 
> could possibly be used to get to non-OpenStack places until they get 
> shut down. One thought I had to try to keep the auth domain 
> constrained to only OpenStack was using the EC2 API because at least 
> that means you're not saving LDAP passwords on disk and the access 
> keys are useless beyond that particular Keystone installation, but you 
> run into impedance mismatches between the Nova API and AWS EC2 API, 
> and we'd like people to use the native OpenStack APIs. (Turns out the 
> notion of using AWS's EC2 API to talk to a private cloud is strange to 
> people not steeped in cloudy things.)
So Service accounts and OAuth consumers are two different names for the 
same abstract construct. IN both cases, the important thing is limiting 
the access each one has.


Horizon is for the interactive use case, though, and should not be using 
either, except as a front to define workflows, and in that case, the 
same work should be possible from the command line.

ECP should make that possible, assuming your IdP supports ECP (EIEIO!).



> From: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon][keystone] Getting Auth Token 
> from Horizon when using Federation
>
>     Hi Dolph, On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 17:50 -0500, Dolph Mathews wrote:
>     > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Martin Millnert
>     <martin at millnert.se <mailto:martin at millnert.se>> > wrote: > Hi, >
>     > we're deploying Liberty (soon Mitaka) with heavy reliance on >
>     the SAML2 > Federation system by Keystone where we're a Service
>     Provider > (SP). > > The problem in this situation is getting a
>     token for direct > API > access.(*) > > There are conceptually two
>     methods to use the CLI: > 1) Modify ones (each customer -- in our
>     case O(100)) IdP to > add support > for a feature called ECP(**),
>     and then use keystoneauth with > SAML2 > plugin, > 2) Go to (for
>     example) "Access & Security / API Access / View > Credentials" in
>     Horizon, and check out a token from there. > > > With a default
>     configuration, this token would only last a short > period of
>     time, so this would be incredibly repetitive (and thus > tedious). 
>
Assuming all that is setup, the user should be unaware of the re-init to 
the SAML IdP to get a new assertion for a new token. Why is this a problem?


>     Indeed. > So, I assume you mean some sort of long-lived API
>     tokens? Right. > API tokens, including keystone's UUID, PKI, PKIZ,
>     and Fernet tokens > are all bearer tokens, so we force a short
>     lifetime by default, > because there are always multiple parties
>     capable of compromising the > integrity of a token. OAuth would be
>     a counter example, where OAuth > access tokens can (theoretically)
>     live forever. 
>

Still think that is a security violation.


>     This does sound very interesting. As long as the end user gets
>     something useful to plug into the openstack auth libraries/APIs,
>     we're home free (modulo security considerations, etc). > 2) isn't
>     implemented. 1) is a complete blocker for many > customers. > >
>     Are there any principal and fundamental reasons why 2 is not >
>     doable? > What I imagine needs to happen: > A) User is
>     authenticated (see *) in Horizon, > B) User uses said
>     authentication (token) to request another > token from > Keystone,
>     which is displayed under the "API Access" tab on > "Access & >
>     Security". > > > The (token) here could be an OAuth access token.
>     Will look into this (also as per our discussion in Austin). The
>     one issue that has appeared in our continued discussions at home,
>     is the contrast against "service user accounts", that seems a
>     relatively prevalent/common among deployers today, which basically
>     use username/password as the api key credentials, e.g. the authZ
>     of the issued token: If AdminNameless is Domain Admin in their
>     domain, won't their OAuth access token yield keystone tokens with
>     the same authZ as they otherwise have? My presumptive answer being
>     'yes', brought me to the realization that, if one wants to avoid
>     going the way of "service user accounts" but still reduce authZ,
>     one would like to be able to get OAuth access tokens for a
>     specific project, with a specific role (e.g. "user", or
>     [project-]admin) and the authZ this entails. This would keep the
>     traceability, which is one of the main issues with non-personal
>     accounts. 
>

I don't think end users should be able to do this themselves.  If I lose 
my access to the IdP due to getting fired, my OAuth tokens should no 
longer be valid, either.  But there is no consistent way to communicate 
this information.

>     How feasible is this last bit? In general, the primary use case
>     is: - I as a user of openstack on my personal computer retrieve a
>     token to manage openstack client operations without the need of
>     storing my Federation-username/password in local config (nor
>     typing the password in on the keyboard). An extended use case
>     definition of this being: - I as a user of openstack can provision
>     an automated system with these credentials, that can continue to
>     operate as an openstack client for a very long time without
>     maintenance (i.e., either token renewal or VeryLongLifetime). 
>

You can build all sorts of things that look like secure authentication 
without actually being secure authentication. Federation assumes that 
the IdP is the true voice of authority. OAuth and service users both 
assume they are getting authority delegated to them fomr the end users.  
So, without SAML assertions confirming that authority, you will end up 
with no way to either confirm or deny. Are you OK with that restriction?

>     Best, Martin
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>     Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev 
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160512/e23ce468/attachment.html>