2.6.1 Security features #1686
Merged
2.6.1 Security features #1686
Conversation
This file contains 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
### Feature or Bugfix <!-- please choose --> - Feature ### Detail - Add `Log Out` Button to expose `/signout` flow to log out credentials from userguide page ### Relates - <URL or Ticket> ### Security Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
- Feature Users that do not belong to the DAAdministrators team can still navigate to the admin console. They cannot do anything as all the API calls will return errors. This PR takes it a step further and shows an error message and does not render any of the components if the admin view. Here is an snapshot of what users view: I considered restricting the route in routes, but because we need to use the useGroups hook, it was giving a lot of errors.  In addition, we have created a utility that unifies the checks to this Cognito group in other places of the frontend. Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
…1654) ### Feature or Bugfix <!-- please choose --> - Bugfix ### Detail - Add check to ensure user is a recipient of a Notification before allowing to mark as read or delete ### Relates ### Security Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
… for prod deployments (#1662) - Feature - Define LOG_LEVEL based on prod_sizing parameter: for prod deployments LOG_LEVEL=INFO, for non-prod deployments LOG_LEVEL=DEBUG. Set it as environment variable for backend Lambdas and ECS tasks - Remove any hardcoded setLevel and re-use the environment variable - For the API handler Lambda, log the response of the API call with level=DEBUG and log the success with level=INFO. Deployed in AWS, CICD pipeline succeeds (with prod_sizing=False) - API calls work as usual - logs collect INFO (logs success) and DEBUG (logs lambda response) - ECS tasks work as usual - tested with CDK proxy call Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
### Feature or Bugfix
<!-- please choose -->
-
### Detail
- Add Removal Policy Retain to Bucket Policy IaC where applicable
- Retain Bucket, KMS Key, and Policy for Created Datasets on Delete
- Retain Bucket and Bucket Policy (SSE-S3 encrypted so no key) for
Environments
### Relates
- <URL or Ticket>
### Security
Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write
`N/A`. Based on
[OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/).
- Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this
includes
fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an
S3 bucket)?
- Is the input sanitized?
- What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you
consume?
- Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries?
- Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used?
- Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires
authorization?
- How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms?
- Are you logging failed auth attempts?
- Are you using or adding any cryptographic features?
- Do you use a standard proven implementations?
- Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored?
- Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users?
- Have you used the least-privilege principle? How?
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made
under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
<!-- please choose --> - Refactor - Change Response Types for Dataset, Dashboard, and Shares Modules: - S3Datasets: `getDataset`, `getDatasetTables`, and `getDatasetStorageLocation` to only return Simplified Env / Org return types - ++ Redshift Datasets - ++ Dataset Shares - <URL or Ticket> Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
<!-- please choose --> - Refactoring - Add `MANAGE_...` Tenant Permissions for full coverage of all mutating APIs Operations ++ any token/credential fetching operations (i.e. Creates, Updates, Deletes, ...) - Rely on resource based permissions for GET/LIST on a particular resource w.r.t to a user/group - For instance - in the use case where a user may not have MANAGE_DATASET (i.e. should not be able to create any datasets) but should still be able to get a dataset / table information when receiving share access to said data object - <URL or Ticket> Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
### Feature or Bugfix <!-- please choose --> - Bugfix ### Detail - For `catalog_indexer_task` ensure we collect all hits from query response for `with_deletes` option - Up the Query Size to 1000 results (default is 10) - Add logic to continue querying to collect all hits if there are more than the query size limit (i.e. > 1000) ### Relates - <URL or Ticket> ### Security Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
### Feature or Bugfix <!-- please choose --> - Bugfix ### Detail - Upgrade Spark version from 3.1 to 3.3 - Upgrade Glue Profiling Job Version from Glue 3.0 to Glue 4.0 ### Relates - <URL or Ticket> ### Security Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
### Feature or Bugfix <!-- please choose --> - Bugfix ### Detail - Ensure any potential sensitive information redacted from logged events ### Relates - ### Security Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
- Bugfix Adding custom domain support for apigw with minimum TLS1.2 Be aware that by enabling this feature the automatically generated apigw URL will be disabled. As a prereq users must already have a custom domain in Route53 and have an ACM certificate. The domain must be setup according to [this]( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/developerguide/how-to-edge-optimized-custom-domain-name.html). To enable this feature one must specify the following in `cdk.json`. ```json "context": { "DeploymentEnvironments": [ { ... "apigw_custom_domain": { "hosted_zone_name": "custom.domain.com", "hosted_zone_id": "...", "certificate_arn": "arn:aws:acm:us-east-1:..." # edge optimized domain thus cert must be in us-east-1 } ... } } ``` - <URL or Ticket> Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
…1685) * add warning * add tooltip * make the confirmation message configurable * add docs   - Feature Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
### Feature or Bugfix - Feature ### Detail Add more restrictions to pivot role that DENY any updates on itself. This prevents the pivot role from granting more permissions to itself in case it is compromised. As an alternative, the first thing that came to mind is the addition of permission boundaries: add the boundary to the pivot role would restrict the permissions that it can grant itself to the boundary specified. This solution does not restrict it to the absolute minimum level of permissions (which is what it currently has) unless we specify a permission boundary identical to the IAM role policy. Keeping a permission boundary in sync with the pivot role policies adds overhead. Another alternative was to use NotResource in the IAM policy statements of the original IAM permissions; but it was not as intuitive. Plus, I like it better to specify the resources explicitly ### Relates - Security ### Security Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
<!-- please choose --> - Bugfix - This PR does the following w.r.t Cognito IdP and Auth Flow - Changes Authorizer from built-in Cognito Authorizer to Custom Authorizer to validate token signature, issuer, and expiry time, etc. - Adds aditional step to execute GET API on Cognito's `/oauth/userInfo/` endpoint to ensure access Token validity Allows data.all API request to execute if the above criteria are met - <URL or Ticket> Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
### Feature or Bugfix - Bugfix ### Detail `CloudfrontDistributionDomainName` param is created in us-east-1 ### Security Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write `N/A`. Based on [OWASP 10](https://owasp.org/Top10/en/). - Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)? - Is the input sanitized? - What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume? - Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries? - Have you ensured no `eval` or similar functions are used? - Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization? - How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms? - Are you logging failed auth attempts? - Are you using or adding any cryptographic features? - Do you use a standard proven implementations? - Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored? - Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users? - Have you used the least-privilege principle? How? By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
petrkalos
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Feature or Bugfix
Detail
Relates
Security
Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write
N/A. Based onOWASP 10.
fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)?
evalor similar functions are used?By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.