[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3: using JWT to request a JWT

[Brian Bouterse]

+1 to this

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

>  - close issues 3163 and 3164
>>  - move JWT auth use cases from the MVP document[2] to the 3.1+
>> document[3].
>>  - add a story for removing "djangorestframework-jwt" from pulp 3.0
>
>
> s/story/task, and
>
> - remove the JWT auth documentation from the 3.0 docs
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> tl;dr We should support only basic auth for 3.0 and implement JWT
>> authentication in 3.1+
>>
>> We currently have 2 stories[0-1] related to JWT authentication that we
>> wanted to implement for 3.0. As @bmbouter, @daviddavis, and I tried to
>> groom them earlier today, we decided that we are not ready to commit to
>> using "djangorestframework-jwt" app for handling JWT authentication.
>> This app has some behaviors that we want to override and also comes with
>> several configuration options that we don't want to support long term. I am
>> proposing that we remove JWT authentication from the MVP and move it to the
>> 3.1+ list. I'd like to
>>
>>  - close issues 3163 and 3164
>>  - move JWT auth use cases from the MVP document[2] to the 3.1+
>> document[3].
>>  - add a story for removing "djangorestframework-jwt" from pulp 3.0
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3163
>> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3164
>> [2] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viabl
>> e_Product/#Authentication
>> [3] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/31+_Ideas_(post_MVP)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to just those use cases. Since we can rollback the change I updated
>>> the MVP with this change:  https://pulp.plan.io/projects/
>>> pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viable_Product/diff?utf8=%E2%9C%93&
>>> version=125&version_from=124&commit=View+differences
>>>
>>> I also added an explicit use case saying that basic auth can
>>> authenticate to all urls. I think that got lost in the language revisions.
>>> It's also in the diff ^.
>>>
>>> Anyone feel free to suggest other changes or edit and send links with
>>> the diff.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:47 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would just do:
>>>>
>>>> As a JWT authenticated user, I can refresh my JWT token if Pulp is
>>>> configured with JWT_ALLOW_REFRESH set to True (default is False).
>>>>
>>>> Having two user stories means two separate items in redmine, and both
>>>> of these user stories will probably be fixed in one commit/PR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 to using JWT_ALLOW_REFRESH as the name, I read the other name from
>>>>> some other docs. +1 to adding a refresh token endpoint and some docs.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to update this area in the MVP which is currently in red. We
>>>>> could replace the use case in red with:  "As an API user, I can
>>>>> authenticate any API call with a JWT" and then add the following two use
>>>>> cases:
>>>>>
>>>>> As a JWT authenticated user, I can receive a new JWT if Pulp is
>>>>> configured with JWT_ALLOW_REFRESH=True
>>>>> As a Pulp administrator, my Pulp system disallows JWT renewal by
>>>>> default (JWT_ALLOW_REFRESH=False)
>>>>>
>>>>> What about these use case changes to the MVP to reflect this convo?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think @misa's point is that if a valid token becomes compromised,
>>>>>>> it could be renewed for a long-maybe-forever time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm reading a desire to have Pulp exhibit both of these types of
>>>>>>> behaviors, and both for good reasons. What if we introduce a setting
>>>>>>> JWT_REFRESH. If enabled, JWT_REFRESH will allow you to receive a new JWT
>>>>>>> when authenticating with an existing JWT. Defaults to False.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm picking False as the default on the idea that not renewing
>>>>>>> tokens would be a more secure system by limiting access in more case than
>>>>>>> when JWT_REFRESH is True. In the implementation, when JWT_REFRESH is set to
>>>>>>> True it would fully disable the JWT_REFRESH_EXPIRATION_DELTA setting so
>>>>>>> that it could be refreshed indefinitly. The user would never know about
>>>>>>> JWT_REFRESH_EXPIRATION_DELTA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being secure-by-default, with the option to do useful-but-dangerous
>>>>>> things, is a great design approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171213/2c9b08fc/attachment.htm>