[Go-essp-tech] GO-ESSP-Tech 4/19/2011 - Release Coordination - Metrics

Wed Apr 20 07:54:18 MDT 2011

Hi all,

My understanding from the call was that we would go with an SSL based solution securing the metrics endpoint.   This was because the alternative would mean a lot of re-engineering in the Gateway code base.

Gavin, I think what you're proposing now is to include the domain name of the user's OpenID in its un-hashed form.  The question then would be, does this still involve a lot of re-working of code on the Gateway side?

I found this post on setting up SSL with mutual authentication and filtering by certificate subject name:

http://twoguysarguing.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/mutual-authentication-with-client-cert-tomcat-6-and-httpclient/

Yes, note the jaded opening remarks :) but if it's a recipe that can be followed by someone who's been there and done it already it should be OK.  Doing this with Apache is much more straightforward via the SSLRequire directive.

Regardless of what happens with the metrics service it would be good to know how to do this for rolling out whitelisting of Attribute and Authorisation Services.   The sooner the better especially for the former service because without it we expose user's e-mail addresses to anyone curious enough to find out how to get them.

Cheers,
Phil

From: "Gavin M. Bell" <gavin at llnl.gov<mailto:gavin at llnl.gov>>
Reply-To: "Gavin M. Bell" <gavin at llnl.gov<mailto:gavin at llnl.gov>>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:10:09 -0700
To: Eric Nienhouse <ejn at ucar.edu<mailto:ejn at ucar.edu>>
Cc: "go-essp-tech at ucar.edu<mailto:go-essp-tech at ucar.edu>" <go-essp-tech at ucar.edu<mailto:go-essp-tech at ucar.edu>>, <esgf-mechanic at lists.llnl.gov<mailto:esgf-mechanic at lists.llnl.gov>>
Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] GO-ESSP-Tech 4/19/2011 - Release Coordination - Metrics

Hi Eric

(comments below)

On 4/19/11 1:46 PM, Eric Nienhouse wrote:

Hi All,

We discussed the Data Node metrics access logging service in our GO-ESSP
call today.  This is a key integration point between Gateways and Data
Nodes and is a high priority feature for the 1.3.0 release.

Following is a summary of our conclusions.  Please note anything that
may be incorrect or unclear.

1)  The Data Node metrics access logging service should be secured via SSL.2)  Gateway access to the metrics service should require (GW client)
authentication.
3)  Email address should not be included in the metrics records exchanged.

nod

4)  There are a number of use cases which imply tracking user OpenID's
at the GW and DN.

I sill think that the openid's should be obfuscated.  The one bit of information in the openid that will be in a different field will be the hostname value of the user's openid i.e. their IDP.  With that bit of information there will be everything that one would need in a metrics context.  Thus you would be able to answer the metrics question: How many people accessing Y data have accounts on X? X being the IDP of an organization.

I share Bob's and Philip's concern about data exposure.  In the scenario above, the  openid of person Z can still be positively gotten by asking idp X, 'hey who is Z?', but this is not the general case.  This also follows the basic pattern that we employ for email addresses which we all agree should not be passed around on the wire, regardless of transfer mechanism.  The pattern for email is that we have to run a special resolution service in order to perform the lookup, because that information is not made directly available.

So, the returned metrics would not have the openid but have two bits of information:
1 - the openid / userid hash
2 - the hostname of the IDP for whom the openid is in custody.

I think this should be sufficient to provide reasonable privacy regardless of using secured ssl or not.
I cannot see a use case in the context of metrics that require any additional information.
Do you concur?

We discussed providing examples or best practices for securing the
metrics service.  (Ideally for a Non-Spring  Tomcat environment.)
(Phil, Luca, Nate?)

We noted the Gateway 1.3.0 RC1 release is waiting on finalizing the
metrics service interface and security configuration.  We need to
identify the time-line for accomplishing securing the metrics service.
(Gavin?)

For further background, the ESG Metrics Use Cases can be found below.
These Use Cases support our conclusions above.

  https://wiki.ucar.edu/display/esgcet/Metrics

I appreciate all the input today.

Thanks,

-Eric

_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu<mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu>http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech

--
Gavin M. Bell
Lawrence Livermore National Labs
--

 "Never mistake a clear view for a short distance."
               -Paul Saffo

(GPG Key - http://rainbow.llnl.gov/dist/keys/gavin.asc)

 A796 CE39 9C31 68A4 52A7  1F6B 66B7 B250 21D5 6D3E

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.