You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

Status

Current stateUnder Discussion

Discussion thread: here [Change the link from the KIP proposal email archive to your own email thread]

JIRA: here [Change the link from KAFKA-1 to your own ticket]

Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).

Motivation

The adoption of KIP-255: OAuth Authentication via SASL/OAUTHBEARER in release 2.0.0 creates the possibility of using information in the bearer token to make authorization decisions.  Unfortunately, however, Kafka connections are long-lived, so there is no ability to change the bearer token associated with a particular connection.  Additionally, the use of short-lived tokens is a common OAuth security recommendation, but issuing a short-lived token to a Kafka client (or a broker when OAUTHBEARER is the inter-broker protocol) has no benefit because once a client is connected to a broker the client is never challenged again and the connection may remain intact beyond the token expiration time (and may remain intact indefinitely under perfect circumstances).  This KIP proposes adding the ability for clients (and brokers when OAUTHBEARER is the inter-broker protocol) to re-authenticate their connections to remote brokers and have the new bearer token appear on their session rather than the old one.

The implementation is designed in such a way that it does not preclude adding support for re-authentication of other SASL mechanism (e.g. PLAIN, SCRAM-related, and GSSAPI), but doing so is explicitly out-of-scope for this proposal.  Also explicitly out-of-scope for this proposal is the ability for brokers to close connections that continue to use expired credentials.  This ability is a natural next step, but it will be addressed via a separate KIP if/when this one is adopted.

Public Interfaces

This KIP proposes the addition of a single interface to the API and a single additional configuration option to enable the feature (the option of course defaults to false, so there is no change to existing behavior in the absence of an explicit opt-in).  Specifically, the interface it proposes to add is as follows:

org.apache.kafka.common.security.expiring.ExpiringCredential
/**
 * A credential that expires and that can potentially be refreshed; such a
 * refreshed credential can also potentially be used to re-authenticate an
 * existing connection.
 * <p>
 * The parameters that impact how the refresh algorithm operates are specified
 * as part of the producer/consumer/broker configuration and are as follows. See
 * the documentation for these properties elsewhere for details.
 * <table>
 * <tr>
 * <th>Producer/Consumer/Broker Configuration Property</th>
 * </tr>
 * <tr>
 * <td>{@code sasl.login.refresh.window.factor}</td>
 * </tr>
 * <tr>
 * <td>{@code sasl.login.refresh.window.jitter}</td>
 * </tr>
 * <tr>
 * <td>{@code sasl.login.refresh.min.period.seconds}</td>
 * </tr>
 * <tr>
 * <td>{@code sasl.login.refresh.min.buffer.seconds}</td>
 * </tr>
 * <tr>
 * <td>{@code sasl.login.refresh.reauthenticate.enable}</td>
 * </tr>
 * </table>
 * <p>
 * This interface was introduced in 2.1.0 and, while it feels stable, it could
 * evolve. We will try to evolve the API in a compatible manner, but we reserve
 * the right to make breaking changes in minor releases, if necessary. We will
 * update the {@code InterfaceStability} annotation and this notice once the API
 * is considered stable.
 * 
 * @see OAuthBearerLoginModule
 * @see SaslConfigs#SASL_LOGIN_REFRESH_WINDOW_FACTOR_DOC
 * @see SaslConfigs#SASL_LOGIN_REFRESH_WINDOW_JITTER_DOC
 * @see SaslConfigs#SASL_LOGIN_REFRESH_MIN_PERIOD_SECONDS_DOC
 * @see SaslConfigs#SASL_LOGIN_REFRESH_BUFFER_SECONDS_DOC
 * @see SaslConfigs#SASL_LOGIN_REFRESH_REAUTHENTICATE_ENABLE_DOC
 */
@InterfaceStability.Evolving
public interface ExpiringCredential {
    /**
     * The value to use when asking a {@code SaslClient} instance for the
     * {@code ExpiringCredential} that was used to authenticate, if any
     */
    public static final String SASL_CLIENT_NEGOTIATED_PROPERTY_NAME = "Expiring.Credential";

    /**
     * The name of the principal to which this credential applies (used only for
     * logging)
     * 
     * @return the always non-null/non-empty principal name
     */
    String principalName();


    /**
     * When the credential became valid, in terms of the number of milliseconds
     * since the epoch, if known, otherwise null. An expiring credential may not
     * necessarily indicate when it was created -- just when it expires -- so we
     * need to support a null return value here.
     * 
     * @return the time when the credential became valid, in terms of the number of
     *         milliseconds since the epoch, if known, otherwise null
     */
    Long startTimeMs();

    /**
     * When the credential expires, in terms of the number of milliseconds since the
     * epoch. All expiring credentials by definition must indicate their expiration
     * time -- thus, unlike other methods, we do not support a null return value
     * here.
     * 
     * @return the time when the credential expires, in terms of the number of
     *         milliseconds since the epoch
     */
    long expireTimeMs();


    /**
     * The point after which the credential can no longer be refreshed, in terms of
     * the number of milliseconds since the epoch, if any, otherwise null. Some
     * expiring credentials can be refreshed over and over again without limit, so
     * we support a null return value here.
     * 
     * @return the point after which the credential can no longer be refreshed, in
     *         terms of the number of milliseconds since the epoch, if any,
     *         otherwise null
     */
    Long absoluteLastRefreshTimeMs();
}


Proposed Changes

Describe the new thing you want to do in appropriate detail. This may be fairly extensive and have large subsections of its own. Or it may be a few sentences. Use judgement based on the scope of the change.

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

  • What impact (if any) will there be on existing users?
  • If we are changing behavior how will we phase out the older behavior?
  • If we need special migration tools, describe them here.
  • When will we remove the existing behavior?

Rejected Alternatives

If there are alternative ways of accomplishing the same thing, what were they? The purpose of this section is to motivate why the design is the way it is and not some other way.

  • No labels