Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enhance IAM policy validation #39

Open
kshamajain99 opened this issue Feb 20, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Enhance IAM policy validation #39

kshamajain99 opened this issue Feb 20, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request nice-to-have

Comments

@kshamajain99
Copy link
Collaborator

Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?:

What happened:
Currently, in order to validate an iam policy we ask administrator to configure two different parameters (allowedPolicyAction and restrictedS3Resource). After which, for a policy action we loop through list of allowed policy actions. Once found in allowed list we check that if it is a S3 related action, we make sure that in is not in the list of restricted s3 resources.

In future, someone might want to restricted another resource lets say route53. Then, instead of adding one more parameter for restricted route53 resource in config map. We should enhance validation logic to take one document for validIAMPolicy which contains all whitelist and restricted resources.

What you expected to happen:
We should make our validation logic more scalable.

How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible):

Anything else we need to know?:

Environment:

  • iam-manager version
  • Kubernetes version :
$ kubectl version -o yaml

Other debugging information (if applicable):

- controller logs:

$ kubectl logs

@kshamajain99 kshamajain99 added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 20, 2020
@wanghong230 wanghong230 added this to the 2.18.0 milestone Feb 21, 2020
@wanghong230
Copy link
Collaborator

  • Design the pattern as the first target

@kshamajain99 kshamajain99 removed this from the 2.18.0 milestone Mar 12, 2020
@mnkg561 mnkg561 removed the 5 label Mar 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request nice-to-have
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants