lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com>
Subject Re: Security Problems
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:32:42 GMT
Would it not be less surprising if ALL requests to Solr required authentication once an AuthenticationPlugin
was enabled?
Then, if no AuthorizationPlugin was active, all authenticated users could do anything.
But if AuthorizationPlugin was configured, you could only do what your role allows you to?

As it is now it is super easy to forget a path, say you protect /select but not /browse and
/query, or someone creates a collection
with some new endpoints and forgets to update security.json - then that endpoint would be
wide open! 

What is the smallest possible security.json required currently to protect all possible paths
(except those served by Jetty)?

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

> 18. nov. 2015 kl. 20.31 skrev Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>:
> 
> I'm very happy for the admin UI to be served another way - i.e. not
> direct from Jetty, if that makes the task of securing it easier.
> 
> Perhaps a request handler specifically for UI resources which would make
> it possible to secure it all in a more straight-forward way?
> 
> Upayavira
> 
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 01:54 PM, Noble Paul wrote:
>> As of now the admin-ui calls are not protected. The static calls are
>> served by jetty and it bypasses the authentication mechanism
>> completely. If the admin UI relies on some API call which is served by
>> Solr.
>> The other option is to revamp the framework to take care of admin UI
>> (static content) as well. This would be cleaner solution
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Not sure I quite understand.
>>> 
>>> You're saying that the cost for the UI is not large, but then suggesting
>>> we protect just one resource (/admin/security-check)?
>>> 
>>> Why couldn't we create the permission called 'admin-ui' and protect
>>> everything under /admin/ui/ for example? Along with the root HTML link
>>> too.
>>> 
>>> Upayavira
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 07:46 AM, Noble Paul wrote:
>>>> The authentication plugin is not expensive if you are talking in the
>>>> context of admin UI. After all it is used not like 100s of requests
>>>> per second.
>>>> 
>>>> The simplest solution would be
>>>> 
>>>> provide a well known permission name called "admin-ui"
>>>> 
>>>> ensure that every admin page load makes a call to some resource say
>>>> "/admin/security-check"
>>>> 
>>>> Then we can just protect that .
>>>> 
>>>> The only concern thatI have is the false sense of security it would
>>>> give to the user
>>>> 
>>>> But, that is a different point altogether
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Is the authentication plugin that expensive?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can help by minifying the UI down to a smaller number of CSS/JS/etc
>>>>> files :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> It may be overkill, but it would also give better experience. And isn't
>>>>> that what most applications do? Check authentication tokens on every
>>>>> request?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Upayavira
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, at 07:33 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>>>>> The reason why we bypass that is so that we don't hit the authentication
>>>>>> plugin for every request that comes in for static content. I think
we
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> call the authentication plugin for that but that'd be an overkill.
Better
>>>>>> experience ? yes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Noble,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I get that a UI which is open source does not benefit from ACL
control -
>>>>>>> we're not giving away anything that isn't public (other than
perhaps
>>>>>>> info that could be used to identify the version of Solr, or even
the
>>>>>>> fact that it *is* solr).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> However, from a user experience point of view, requiring credentials
to
>>>>>>> see the UI would be more conventional, and therefore lead to
less
>>>>>>> confusion. Is it possible for us to protect the UI static files,
only
>>>>>>> for the sake of user experience, rather than security?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Upayavira
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Noble Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>> The admin UI is a bunch of static pages . We don't let the
ACL control
>>>>>>>> static content
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> you must blacklist all the core/collection apis and it is
pretty much
>>>>>>>> useless for anyone to access the admin UI (w/o the credentials
, of
>>>>>>>> course)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:08 AM, 马柏樟 <mabaizhang@126.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> After I configure Authentication with Basic Authentication
Plugin and
>>>>>>> Authorization with Rule-Based Authorization Plugin, How can I
prevent the
>>>>>>> strangers from visiting my solr by browser? For example, if the
stranger
>>>>>>> visit the http://(my host):8983, the browser will pop up a window
and
>>>>>>> says "the server http://(my host):8983 requires a username and
>>>>>>> password...."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Noble Paul
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>>> Noble Paul
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Noble Paul


Mime
View raw message