Secure RBAC work
geguileo at redhat.com
Tue Jan 26 16:28:32 UTC 2021
On 26/01, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:22:45 +0100
> Gorka Eguileor <geguileo at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 19/01, Lance Bragstad wrote:
> > > TL;DR - OpenStack services implementing secure RBAC should update default
> > > policies with the `reader` role in a consistent manner, where it is not
> > > meant to protect sensitive information.
> > I have just one question regarding your TL;DR, shouldn't it be "where it
> > is meant to protect sensitive information"?
> > As I understood it the reader should be updated so it doesn't expose
> > sensitive information (thus protecting it) because it's the least
> > privileged role.
> I think Lance means that the reader role can see what member sees
> (in any scope - system, domain, project). If a member sees some sensitive
> information, then reader is not a place to make access reduction. In fact
> it's harmful, because reader is not emulating member sufficiently for
> being useful for anything. At least that's how I read Lance's intent.
What I understood was that the reader wouldn't be able to see any
sensitive information, not even from a user.
Erno brought up a specific case with Glance and how a user may be able
to see their licenses but a reader shouldn't.
So either I'm misunderstanding something or Erno's concerns won't be
addressed with our current approach.
> > > I think it's clear that there are APIs and resources in OpenStack that fall
> > > into a special category where we shouldn't expose certain information to
> > > the lowest level of the role hierarchy, regardless of the scope. But, the
> > > role implication functionality served a purpose initially to deliver a
> > > least-privileged role used only for read operations within a given scope. I
> > > think breaking that implication now is confusing considering we implemented
> > > the implication in Rocky , but I think future work for an elevated
> > > read-only role is a good path forward.
> That's not going to do a whole lot to simplify those check strings.
> Perfect example of kicking the can down the road and committing to
> more technical baggage.
> -- Pete
More information about the openstack-discuss