radosgw, public and private access on the same cluster ?
Hi everyone, we have a ceph cluster for object storage only, the rgws are accessible from the internet, and everything is ok. Now, one of our team/client required that their data should not ever be accessible from the internet. In any case of security bug/breach/whatever, they want to limit the access to their data from the local network. Before creating a second "private" cluster, is there a way to achieve this on our current "public" cluster? Is a multi-zone without replication would help me with that? A public rgws for public access on the "pub_zone", and a private rgws for private access on the "prv_zone"? pubzone.rgw.buckets.data prvzone.rgw.buckets.data If the "public" rgws is hacked, without the access_key/secret_key of the private zone, is there any possibilities to access the private zone? Does a multi-realms would help me to secure it more? Any input would be really appreciated. I don't want to put to much energy for false security and/or security by obscurity, so if these scenarios of multi-sites/multi-realms are useless, in a security point of view, please tell me. :-) Thanks! JS
On 7/21/20 6:30 PM, Jean-Sebastien Landry wrote:
Hi everyone, we have a ceph cluster for object storage only, the rgws are accessible from the internet, and everything is ok.
Is there a HTTP proxy in between?
Now, one of our team/client required that their data should not ever be accessible from the internet.
First: Upload with a Private ACL. This means that Authentication is always required to read the data.
In any case of security bug/breach/whatever, they want to limit the access to their data from the local network.
Before creating a second "private" cluster, is there a way to achieve this on our current "public" cluster?
Is a multi-zone without replication would help me with that?
A public rgws for public access on the "pub_zone", and a private rgws for private access on the "prv_zone"?
pubzone.rgw.buckets.data prvzone.rgw.buckets.data
If the "public" rgws is hacked, without the access_key/secret_key of the private zone, is there any possibilities to access the private zone?
Does a multi-realms would help me to secure it more?
Any input would be really appreciated.
I don't want to put to much energy for false security and/or security by obscurity, so if these scenarios of multi-sites/multi-realms are useless, in a security point of view, please tell me. :-)
Why not work with a HTTP proxy in between that filters out specific bucket names? Or only allows access to them if the client IP matches X. This way two barriers need to be crossed: - Filtering in the proxy - RGW authentication Wido
Thanks! JS _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Hi Wido, yes I have and http proxy in between. Your right, bucket filtering on the proxy and ACL on the bucket will be simple enough, but I don't know if it will be good enough. I know it's far-fetched but, if, for whatever reason, the access/secret key are leaked, and I have a security issue on the rgw (edge node) then the data could be exposed after modifying the proxy filtering rules. Maybe I could have two proxy, one on the edge node fronting the public network, without filtering, forwarding to a second proxy in the private network, doing the bucket filtering... Thanks! JS
participants (2)
-
Jean-Sebastien Landry
-
Wido den Hollander