[Lustre-devel] Security issues
Peter.Braam at Sun.COM
Fri Aug 8 10:12:38 PDT 2008
On 8/8/08 11:03 AM, "Eric Barton" <eeb at sun.com> wrote:
> 1. Securing bulk data.
> It seems to me that it is appropriate to use the GSSAPI to secure the
> transfer of bulk data between client and server since it's effectively just
> another message. I can see (at least naively) that it would be good to
> avoid double encryption in the case where file contents are actually stored
> encrypted on disk.
You are not telling me that we are going through a lot of re-design, that we
are encrypting data and that then we are not storing it encrypted on disk?
Come on, adding an EA with a key to decrypt is not so hard and one gets lots
of value from it.
> But even in this case, don't we still have to sign the
> (encrypted) bulk so that the receiver can be sure it arrived intact?
Well, yes, but as I indicated you can sign the hash that is stored on (ZFS)
disk for this. That avoids generating the hash twice. So I am really not
The issue is not the message mechanism, but is what identity to use for GSS
to authenticate and how to manage and revoke that etc.
> 2. Securing Capabilities.
> If we want to be sure that a Capability given to client A cannot be
> snooped and used by client B we either (a) have to make the Capability
> secret (i.e. never passed in cleartext) or (b) have to make the Capability
> identify which client it is valid for.
> It seems to me that (b) is preferrable since it ensures that a malicious
> client cannot leak Capabilities to a 3rd party. The downside is that this
> multiplies the number of unique Capabilities by the number of clients,
> potentially increasing CPU load when 1000s of clients all open the same
> shared file and each require unique Capabilities to access the stripe objects.
> Do we have a feel for how bad this could be?
Yes, very bad, and it is absolutely necessary to have an option that avoids
this (also 1000s is out of date it could be 100x worse). That option
could be to simply not have security on the compute cluster if customers
agree with this.
We also need to discuss your proposals with a review committee from LLNL and
Sandia, as we did during the PF discussions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lustre-devel