1) Per-keyspace authentication allows for accountability and access control, at least at a rudimentary level. Without this, there are several types of applications that it would be impossible to use Cassandra for, due to data security restrictions. Not just impractical, but probably illegal in some cases.
2) If you have an intrusion into your network or a malicious user internally (yes, this happens), you're completely unprotected without per-keyspace authentication.
3) Per-keyspace authentication is done once-per-session; if you use connection pooling or persistent connections of any sort in your application, this has virtually zero overhead.
4) It's REALLY bad infosec practice to have your data accessible by anyone, anytime, with no restrictions, which is how Cassandra currently operates. While good network and application security can minimize the risks, at present, a typo or missed change in a cut and paste can potentially damage your data, especially if you have CFs/SCFs that have the same name in two keyspaces.
5) This is common practice, pretty much everywhere. Every SQL database, and almost every NOSQL database employs some form of AAA (Authentication, Authorization, and Accountability) functionality. It's pretty much an expected feature, though the granularity varies depending on the implementation. AAA isn't expensive, but it sure can save your butt later (and/or help you prosecute that Evil Nasty Person). It can also provide you with nifty "Unauthorized" exceptions that let you know you forgot to change the keyspace in your configuration and almost did a Really Bad Thing.
6) Your bosses will like it (and you) a lot better if they don't have to ask you where your organization's data went.
Hope this helps drive the point home that authentication and authorization (as proposed) has near-zero overhead and is actually pretty bad (read: slightly horrifying to auditors and security people, but really exciting for evil people and typo gremlins) to not have.
On Nov 11, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Coe, Robin wrote:
Do you mean that users interacting with Cassandra through the CLI should be restricted based on a security service? I agree. However, I believe the more common case is to front the Cassandra service with an application layer, as you would expose a relational backend. For that kind of service, the application should control the security. Basically, a user request to Cassandra is not stateful; any request should be able to perform a transaction against any node in the cluster, using an appropriate consistency model for the request. Requiring something like real time token synchronization across all nodes in a cluster seems outside of Cassandraís eventual consistency model. Securing the data is intrinsically application-specific. While I could see adding a plugin that makes the CLI access point secured, I would still want that to be made in a pluggable fashion, so it could be swapped out with a custom implementation. Of course, this is just my point of view, but I make it after having written several security layers on J2EE apps over the years and none of them have been the same. Besides that, I want the data layer to be highly efficient and in my opinion, it isnít the work of the data service to impose security.
IMO, auth services should be left to the application layer that interfaces to Cassandra and not built into Cassandra. In the tutorial snippet included below, the access being granted is at the codebase level, not the transaction level. Since users of Cassandra will generally be fronted by a service layer, the java security manager isnít going to suffice. What this snippet could do, though, and may be the rationale for the request, is to ensure that unauthorized users cannot instantiate a new Cassandra server. However, if a user has physical access to the machine on which Cassandra is installed, they could easily bypass that layer of security.
What if Cassandra IS the application you're exposing? Imagine a large company that creates one large internal Cassandra deployment, and has multiple departments it wants to create separate keyspaces for. You can do that now, but there's nothing except a gentlemen's agreement to prevent one department from trashing another department's keyspace, and accidents do happen. You can front the service with some kind of application layer, but then you have another API to maintain, and you'll lose some performance this way.