The current implementations make it difficult for
adding new privileges (example: a cluster privilege which is
more than cluster action-based and not exposed to the security
administrator). On the high level, we would like our cluster privilege
either:
- a named cluster privilege
This corresponds to `cluster` field from the role descriptor
- or a configurable cluster privilege
This corresponds to the `global` field from the role-descriptor and
allows a security administrator to configure them.
Some of the responsibilities like the merging of action based cluster privileges
are now pushed at cluster permission level. How to implement the predicate
(using Automaton) is being now enforced by cluster permission.
`ClusterPermission` helps in enforcing the cluster level access either by
performing checks against cluster action and optionally against a request.
It is a collection of one or more permission checks where if any of the checks
allow access then the permission allows access to a cluster action.
Implementations of cluster privilege must be able to provide information
regarding the predicates to the cluster permission so that can be enforced.
This is enforced by making implementations of cluster privilege aware of
cluster permission builder and provide a way to specify how the permission is
to be built for a given privilege.
This commit renames `ConditionalClusterPrivilege` to `ConfigurableClusterPrivilege`.
`ConfigurableClusterPrivilege` is a renderable cluster privilege exposed
as a `global` field in role descriptor.
Other than this there is a requirement where we would want to know if a cluster
permission is implied by another cluster-permission (`has-privileges`).
This is helpful in addressing queries related to privileges for a user.
This is not just simply checking of cluster permissions since we do not
have access to runtime information (like request object).
This refactoring does not try to address those scenarios.
Relates #44048
Test clusters currently has its own set of logic for dealing with
finding different versions of Elasticsearch, downloading them, and
extracting them. This commit converts testclusters to use the
DistributionDownloadPlugin.
testclusters detect from settings that security is enabled
if a user is not specified using the DSL introduced in this PR, a default one is created
the appropriate wait conditions are used authenticating with the first user defined in the DSL ( or the default user ).
an example DSL to create a user is user username:"test_user" password:"x-pack-test-password" role: "superuser" all keys are optional and default to the values shown in this example
* Un-mute and fix BuildExamplePluginsIT
There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the test iteself.
I think the failure were CI performance related, but while it was muted,
some failures managed to sneak in.
Closes#38784
* PR review
For some users, the built in authorization mechanism does not fit their
needs and no feature that we offer would allow them to control the
authorization process to meet their needs. In order to support this,
a concept of an AuthorizationEngine is being introduced, which can be
provided using the security extension mechanism.
An AuthorizationEngine is responsible for making the authorization
decisions about a request. The engine is responsible for knowing how to
authorize and can be backed by whatever mechanism a user wants. The
default mechanism is one backed by roles to provide the authorization
decisions. The AuthorizationEngine will be called by the
AuthorizationService, which handles more of the internal workings that
apply in general to authorization within Elasticsearch.
In order to support external authorization services that would back an
authorization engine, the entire authorization process has become
asynchronous, which also includes all calls to the AuthorizationEngine.
The use of roles also leaked out of the AuthorizationService in our
existing code that is not specifically related to roles so this also
needed to be addressed. RequestInterceptor instances sometimes used a
role to ensure a user was not attempting to escalate their privileges.
Addressing this leakage of roles meant that the RequestInterceptor
execution needed to move within the AuthorizationService and that
AuthorizationEngines needed to support detection of whether a user has
more privileges on a name than another. The second area where roles
leaked to the user is in the handling of a few privilege APIs that
could be used to retrieve the user's privileges or ask if a user has
privileges to perform an action. To remove the leakage of roles from
these actions, the AuthorizationService and AuthorizationEngine gained
methods that enabled an AuthorizationEngine to return the response for
these APIs.
Ultimately this feature is the work included in:
#37785#37495#37328#36245#38137#38219Closes#32435
Yogesh Gaikwad
Ryan Ernst
Alpar Torok
Alpar Torok
Jay Modi