Xiaohan 2012-11-16, 14:44
Aaron T. Myers 2012-11-16, 19:41
Xiaohan 2012-11-19, 04:28
-Re: 答复: What is the reason that DataNode should configured the http and streamer port with a number under 1024 in secure mode?
Todd Lipcon 2012-11-19, 18:01
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Xiaohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
> Thanks for your kind reply. Your explanation is really helpful for me.
> Still left one question:
> >> However, in order for a user to get a malicious DN to register with the
> NN that user will need access to the DN keytab.
> Is there any difference between DN registration and normal NN RPC? I mean
> at the respect of authentication?
> As far as I know, there seem be no difference. So a client who can visit
> the NN (such as creating a file) also can make a registration to NN.
The DN->NN RPCs come in on a different port and different IPC interface
than the client RPCs. The DN->NN RPC only allows a single configured
principal (ie the DNs) to connect if security is enabled.
> 发件人: Aaron T. Myers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 发送时间: 2012年11月17日 3:41
> 收件人: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 主题: Re: What is the reason that DataNode should configured the http and
> streamer port with a number under 1024 in secure mode?
> Hi Xiaohan,
> You're right that if a malicious user can get a fake DN to register with
> the NN then the low ports don't matter. However, in order for a user to get
> a malicious DN to register with the NN that user will need access to the DN
> keytab. If the user has access to that, then all is lost anyway since by
> logging in with that keytab the user can act as an HDFS super user.
> The purpose of the requiring the low ports is to prevent the following
> 1) Malicious user finds a crashed DN process or somehow causes a DN process
> to crash.
> 2) Before the NN considers that DN dead (by default 10 minutes) the
> malicious user starts a fake DN process on the same (high) ports.
> 3) The NN continues to tell clients that it's OK to write to that DN that
> has just crashed for 10 minutes.
> 4) The malicious user steals all the data written to the crashed process in
> those 10 minutes.
> I hope this clears things up.
> Aaron T. Myers
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Xiaohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, guys.
> > Now our cluster is moving to security mode. We find many difference with
> > the non-security, one is the starting of datanode. And I am not sure how
> > works, so I send the email here to ask.
> > Secure mode must use jsvc liking tools to start datanode because it
> > the datanode listening the port under 1024 woring in not-root user.
> > I search the reason of using the port under 1024 with google, only findng
> > that Cloudera's CDH doc describes the reason, which is "DataNode must be
> > below 1024, because this provides part of the security mechanism to make
> > impossible for a user to run a map task which impersonates a DataNode."
> > I try to configure the datanode's http port with 2004(the suggesting
> > is 1004) which is above 1024, then starting it in secure mode. It result
> > a failure of starting the one as expected. But I found the failure is
> > because of the DataNode itself check the number and throws the exception.
> > Since user to run map task may impersonate the DataNode, he could also
> > change the code of DataNode with avoiding the check in DataNode. When
> > do it, it still impersonate the DataNode with a port above 1024, which a
> > non-root user could use and then application in map task could use.
> > Then I supposed that NN should also do the check, so I deleted the check
> > code in DataNode, configuring the http port with 2004, then starting
> > DataNode in secure mode. The DataNode starting successfully and the NN
> > accept the DataNode.
> > The data is also writed to the DataNode. Everything works well as the
> > DataNode is a normal one.
> > Is it a defect? Or I 've missed something. If either of them, please let
> > me know. Thank you.
Software Engineer, Cloudera