|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: ISCSI: User authentication vs. Machine Authentication for iSCSIPrasenjit, I agree with Jim Hafner. The notion of `user level security' is exactly what iSCSI needs, due to the unique combination of factors that compose an iSCSI system. In the initial case, where the iSCSI client is the host OS, the OS is fully capable of representing an identity (being a user) and hiding that identity from unprivileged users of that system. > I'm not sure the problem you mentioned is specific to iSCSI as I have seen > a user-level Fibre Channel driver in action. True. However, the user-mode driver is granted full `control' (i.e. root) privs if it is allowed to execute arbitrary SCSI commands. Access to raw storage has traditionally been a rigidly protected resource, which when granted, gives complete control of the associated domain (which might be more than one system in a SAN or cluster). This is a well-understood characteristic of the raw storage trust model. In the Berkeley networking model (praise the mighty), access to network communication (other than evesdropping) is not a rigidly protected resource. The assumption is that the local endpoint is not granted any additional power by being able to communicate arbitrarily, and the remote endpoint must protect itself as appropriate to the service it offers. > The issue here is that the notion of user is an operating system > abstraction and has no meaning in domains in which the > OS has no administrative control (such as a SAN). Not really. A user is an authenticable identity in any form. The control is the access provided. > Extending the notion of an user outside the domain of an OS requires > primitives current SAN technology does not support (yet!) I agree that the present infrastructure doesn't support this idea well. However, what we should do is define our security in such a way that the SAN infrastructure can evolve towards the same type of identity mechanisms that other networking services (try to) support. If we do this right (and I think Jim's got the idea) it can support both `the OS is completely trusted' (for now) and `each user has their own credentials' (later) models. We just need to make sure we don't do anything stupid like claim that authenticable entity == IP address in the protocol itself. At present we're not in risk of doing that, but maybe I should come out in support of it just in case :^) I don't think there's any concrete change to what's already specified to support this. We certainly don't have to dot every I and cross every T on the multiple identities per system model (i.e. authentication and authorization infrastructure needn't instantly be created to solve the full problem), but I guess we should be aware of what we're shooting for as we specify additional security behavior. Steph
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:03:51 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |