Project

Profile

Help

Task #8202

closed

Make sensitive fields write_only and stop filtering on them

Added by daviddavis almost 2 years ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
-
Sprint/Milestone:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Platform Release:
Groomed:
No
Sprint Candidate:
No
Tags:
GalaxyNG
Sprint:
Sprint 91
Quarter:

Description

Make these fields write_only=True

  • username
  • password
  • proxy_username
  • proxy_password
  • client_key

Filter implications

To not leak data we can no longer offer filtering of these fields. The FilterSet needs to be adjusted with this work to disinclude these fields.

Update the docs

There are scary banners that say that Pulp is unsafe to use because it returns this kind of data in the responses. The banners should still exist, but they should no longer give examples of username and password becase that is no longer in the API. It should say instead that it could read data from objects from other users (or something like that).


Related issues

Blocks Pulp - Story #8192: Add code to pulpcore that uses the db key to encrypt fieldsCLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by daviddavis almost 2 years ago

  • Tracker changed from Issue to Task
  • % Done set to 0
  • Severity deleted (2. Medium)
  • Triaged deleted (No)
Actions #2

Updated by daviddavis almost 2 years ago

  • Sprint/Milestone set to 3.11.0
Actions #3

Updated by bmbouter almost 2 years ago

  • Blocks Story #8192: Add code to pulpcore that uses the db key to encrypt fields added
Actions #4

Updated by bmbouter almost 2 years ago

  • Subject changed from Make sensitive fields write_only to Make sensitive fields write_only and stop filtering on them
  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #6

Updated by bmbouter almost 2 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)

notes from the original posting:

Potentially needing to be write_only

bmbouter's recommendations

  • username - yes because this can be significant
  • password - yes, definitely
  • proxy_url - no, but it's debatable. Users could set username/password in this. Perhaps we could have the validation disable users from doing that. That would be good. Being able to read back the proxy_url is important for users I think.
  • proxy_username - yes because this can be significant
  • proxy_password - yes, definitly
  • client_cert - no, certs aren't useful without the key
  • client_key - yes, definitly
Actions #7

Updated by bmbouter almost 2 years ago

  • Tags GalaxyNG added
Actions #8

Updated by daviddavis almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from NEW to ASSIGNED
  • Assignee set to daviddavis
Actions #9

Updated by ipanova@redhat.com almost 2 years ago

  • Sprint set to Sprint 91
Actions #10

Updated by pulpbot over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from ASSIGNED to POST

Added by daviddavis over 1 year ago

Revision b5e49a32

Make sensitive Remote fields write_only

fixes #8202

Actions #11

Updated by daviddavis over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from POST to MODIFIED
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100
Actions #12

Updated by ipanova@redhat.com over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from MODIFIED to CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE

Also available in: Atom PDF