Re: [pgAdmin4][Patch]- Feature #7012 - disable master password requirement when using alternative auth source

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 3:46 PM Aditya Toshniwal <
aditya(dot)toshniwal(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 3:28 PM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 10:49, Aditya Toshniwal <
>> aditya(dot)toshniwal(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> Generally, secure keys like API_KEYS and all are supposed to be set in
>>> env and are read by the app. Similar is the alternative encryption key.
>>> People can run their scripts to export those config vars.
>>>
>>
>> On the client side, yes. This is server side though. It's not uncommon on
>> the server side to include hooks to allow key retrieval from external key
>> management systems.
>>
> Even on the server side. Like the AWS auth keys, or DB passwords. We can
> include hooks, not against it. Just discussing.
>
Environment variables are good for static values.
Here - we're talking about dynamic data (per user security key), hence -
hooks are the best way forward.

-- Ashesh

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 2:38 PM Khushboo Vashi <
>>> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 2:34 PM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 09:57, Khushboo Vashi <
>>>>> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 2:01 PM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 at 09:20, Akshay Joshi <
>>>>>>> akshay(dot)joshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, the patch applied.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:00 PM Khushboo Vashi <
>>>>>>>> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please find the attached patch to implement the feature #7012 -
>>>>>>>>> Disable master password requirement when using alternative auth source
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When pgAdmin stores a connection password, it encrypts it using a
>>>>>>>>> key that is formed either from the master password, or from the pgAdmin
>>>>>>>>> login password for the user. In the case of auth methods such as OAuth,
>>>>>>>>> Kerberos or Webserver, pgAdmin doesn't have access to anything long-lived
>>>>>>>>> to form the encryption key from, hence it uses the master password. And if
>>>>>>>>> the master is disabled, there is no way to store the connection password.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To resolve this, we have added an option to config.py (which
>>>>>>>>> defaults to None) for an alternate encryption key. pgAdmin would use this
>>>>>>>>> if a) the master password is disabled AND b) there is no suitable
>>>>>>>>> key/password available from the auth module for the user. If the
>>>>>>>>> option is set to None, pgAdmin works as it does now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This change has just been brought to my attention through other
>>>>>>> work. I think this is poorly thought out, and could easily be made much
>>>>>>> more secure and flexible than the current design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of effectively hard-coding a master password, which is only
>>>>>>> slightly more secure than not having one in the first place, we should
>>>>>>> allow the user to specify the path to a script or program that will return
>>>>>>> a key. In a security-conscious environment, the script might query a
>>>>>>> centralised key management system to securely retrieve the key to use. If a
>>>>>>> user really wants the less secure implementation that this current patch
>>>>>>> offers, then a simple script as follows would offer that (but would not be
>>>>>>> recommended):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ====
>>>>>>> #!/bin/sh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> echo "my secret key"
>>>>>>> ====
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would probably also want to allow use of a placeholder in which
>>>>>>> the username can be passed, e.g.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MASTER_ENCRYPTION_KEY_SCRIPT = '/path/to/get-key.sh %u'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>> Does this mean we are going to remove the current implementation
>>>>>> which offers a hard-coded master password?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think that is the way to go. I don't want to add a config
>>>>> parameter that doesn't seem like a good solution, and then remove it again
>>>>> in the next release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, In that case, we need to revert the patch and also need to update
>>>> the RM #7012 regarding our proposal.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Page
>>>>> Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>>>
>>>>> EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Aditya Toshniwal
>>> pgAdmin Hacker | Software Architect | *edbpostgres.com*
>>> <http://edbpostgres.com>
>>> "Don't Complain about Heat, Plant a TREE"
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Page
>> Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>
>> EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Aditya Toshniwal
> pgAdmin Hacker | Software Architect | *edbpostgres.com*
> <http://edbpostgres.com>
> "Don't Complain about Heat, Plant a TREE"
>