Handle unmodified sensitived fields when updating connections (#53943) #53973
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
pierrejeambrun
requested review from
amoghrajesh,
ashb,
bbovenzi,
bugraoz93,
ephraimbuddy,
jason810496,
jscheffl,
kaxil,
rawwar,
ryanahamilton and
shubhamraj-git
as code owners
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:API
ashb
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2025
potiuk
added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
The apache#53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data.
This was referenced Aug 4, 2025
potiuk
added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
The apache#53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data.
potiuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
The #53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
…mation (#54088) The #53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data. (cherry picked from commit f5a88d9) Co-authored-by: Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com>
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to aws-mwaa/upstream-to-airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
…mation (apache#54088) The apache#53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data. (cherry picked from commit f5a88d9) Co-authored-by: Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com>
potiuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
…mation (#54088) (#54100) The #53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data. (cherry picked from commit f5a88d9) Co-authored-by: Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com>
82 tasks
ferruzzi
pushed a commit
to aws-mwaa/upstream-to-airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2025
…he#54088) The apache#53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data.
fweilun
pushed a commit
to fweilun/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2025
…he#54088) The apache#53973 introduced a change in the model of handling of the sensitive connection data in the Airlfow UI. Previoiusly our agreed model included capability of reading sensitive data bu the users who have Connection Configuraiton role. However in 3.0.4 we changeed the model so that those users have "write-only" access - they can write the sensitive data, but they cannot read the data via API or the UI once it is written. WHile not a security vulnerability on it's own, it's a security improvement that allows to mitigate some scenarios, especially when connection editing user credentials are stolen. This PR clarifies the model and properly communicates it to the users clearly indicating the difference implemented in 3.0.4 and the model of our security and clearly explaining that before 3.0.4 that was a delibearate choice of the model that the connection editing users had access to the sensitive data.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Manual backport of #53943