I'd like to limit the privileges afforded to any given user that I create via the Google Terraform provider. By default, any user created is placed in the cloudsqlsuperuser group, and any new database created has that role/group as owner. This gives any user created via the GCP console or google_sql_user Terraform resource total control over any database that is (or was) created in a similar fashion.
So far, the best we've been able to come up with is creating and altering a user via a single-run k8s job. This seems circuitous, at best, especially given that that resource must then be manually imported later if we want to manage it via Terraform.
Is there a better way to create a user that has privileges limited to a single, application-specific database?
I was puzzled by this behaviour too. Its probably not the answer you want but if you can use GCP IAM accounts the user gets created in the PostgreSQL instance with NO roles.
There are 3 types of account you can create from "gcloud sql users create" or terraform module "google_sql_user"
"CLOUD_IAM_USER", "CLOUD_IAM_SERVICE_ACCOUNT" or "BUILT_IN"
The default is the built_in type if not specified.
CLOUD_IAM_USER and CLOUD_IAM_SERVICE_ACCOUNTS get created with NO roles.
We are using these as integration with IAM is useful in lots of ways (no managing passwords at database level is a major plus esp. when used in conjunction with SQL Auth Proxy).
BUILT_IN accounts (ie old school need a postgres username and password) for some reason are granted the "cloudsqlsuperuser" role.
In the absence of being allowed the superuser role on GCP this is about as privileged as you can get so to me (and you) seems a bizarre default.
Related
I'm trying to create a user in Keycloak admin console, but it has effective roles that should not be there. In addition to default realm roles, each user, when created, has odd Effective Roles. And I can't understand, where they come from. Even when I delete all assigned roles, effective roles just stay there.
This does not happen usually, seems like a problem with your Keycloak setup and installation.
Have you checked the default roles at realm level? Roles shown in screenshot belong to realm-management client.
If you are using master realm, I'd suggest you to create a new realm other than master and use it.
I am running a small go application inside ec2 instance. It access Amazon SQS as a consumer. I have configured keys at ~/.aws/credential file. The EC2 instance has been assigned an IAM role.
Can my go application use the IAM role assigned to the EC2 instance?
If yes, how that can be done using configurations without a code change ?
If role is configured, should I still provide keys in somewhere ?
If you used github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/config and config.LoadDefaultConfig() method to retrieve AWS credentials,
Yes. Your application will retrieve temporary credentials with IAM Role you assigned.
aws-sdk-go-v2 will retrieve credentials from instance metadata. Detailed retrieving process is described AWS official docs here. "How do roles for EC2 instances work" section describes the process as below.
When the application runs, it obtains temporary security credentials from Amazon EC2 instance metadata, as described in Retrieving Security Credentials from Instance Metadata. These are temporary security credentials that represent the role and are valid for a limited period of time.
With some AWS SDKs, the developer can use a provider that manages the temporary security credentials transparently. (The documentation for individual AWS SDKs describes the features supported by that SDK for managing credentials.)
Alternatively, the application can get the temporary credentials directly from the instance metadata of the EC2 instance. Credentials and related values are available from the iam/security-credentials/role-name category (in this case, iam/security-credentials/Get-pics) of the metadata. If the application gets the credentials from the instance metadata, it can cache the credentials.
Also you can refer to here about aws-sdk-go-v2's credential retrieval order.
You don't have to provide key. aws-sdk-go-v2 will retrieve it from EC2 instance metadata.
I am testing the CloudSQL IAM automatic authenticationby using IAM service account users. The goal is to deploy a backend service running in cloud with an service account (SA), which can connect onto a CloudSQL database without using password auth.
So this is what I did:
Create a cloud SQL database demo-db via gcloud console
Create a service account sa via gcloud console
Create a backend service and run it in k8s with sa as the account, with the help of cloud-sql-jdbc-socket-factory
. And make the backend service having liquibase schema migration so it can create tables
Create a IAM service account user user-sa in demo-db via gcloud console
Create a normal built-in user user-db (with a password) in demo-db via gcloud console (for my local login/psql to the db)
Deploy the backend to production, and it connected (with user-sa) and created tables in demo-db (with liquibase)
And this is a problem I have now:
When I use cloud-sql-proxy to login the demo-db locally via psql, with user user-db and the password, I realise that I cannot view or select the table created by the backend service (via user-sa).
Then how can I view the data in the database as a developer?
PS: Fow now I don't have access to user-sa or sa's secret/key files. As it is managed by our infra. I only have ownership of demo-db and I could give access right of my db to user-sa ...
I had the same issue on AWS's Postgres RDS.
You (as the backend creation service) basically have to create a role, place your deployment role (user-sa) into that role and also your app user (user-db).
Then your deployment script will have to use ALTER <OBJECT> OWNER TO <ROLE>. Now every role or user in that role will have access. You'll have to do this for functions, tables, etc
Another alternative is to set default permissions via ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES, but note that those only take effect on new objects. If you add a new db role afterward and want to grant it permissions to a table that already existed, you'd still have to add explicit permissions for the new role.
* Note that in postgres, a role and user are interchangeable in commands. In my view, a role does not log in, but it can be used to hold a set of permissions. Instead of assigning permissions to individual users, assign them to a group/role, then grant the user membership to the group/role. Ensure that your inheriting permissions is allowed on the users and roles for this to work.
Want to identify the users/login with Administrative access on server to migrate them to new server's. I have tried Select * from $System.TMSCHEMA_ROLE_MEMBERSHIPS but these give information regarding the particular database i need more at server level.
Ssas users are done quite differently from normal databases. Ssas uses only the active directory account of the user trying to connect.
On server level the only security is done in the properties of the server, there you can select active directory users with administrative access to the server.
On database level you can create roles, give them access to (part of a) database and link active directory users/groups to them.
Using the analysisservices namespace of microsoft you already mentioned you can look trough every role in every database and note the permissions.
As far as I know you can't actually use this namespace to see all the administrators of the user. But unless you have an unreasonable amount of administrators the best solution might be to just open the server in sql server management studio, click on properties, security and write down all the AD members manually.
I hope this helps you and good luck!
On IBM DB2 v.9 windows, when someone connect to database by Server\Administrator user
DB2 database will automatically accept and grant all the permissions to this user?
But, in some case environment Administrator of server does not need to see every data in the database. So how to prevent Administrator use connect to database?
On 9.5 and older this would not be possible because the account under which your instance runs is SYSADM. Also Administrator can reset at least local account passwords and gain access to them, making changing the instance owner account useless.
However on 9.7 and onwards the instance owner will not have access to the data anymore. One option is to upgrade to 9.7. Furthermore you can set up an AD account for the connections your applications use. Local Administrator is not necessarily able to change into those credentials.
Still, the Administrator ultimately has access to the (usually unencrypted) database files. You can mostly improve the administrative aspect of security.
Umm... For many times I try to revoke with this command but when I connect to database by Administrator account DB2 will automatic grant permission to Administrator again.
I will try again for make sure.
By default, DB2 databases are created with CONNECT authority granted to public. If you want to restrict some users from connecting, you need to do
GRANT CONNECT ON DATABASE TO <user1>, <user2>, ...
Then revoke the CONNECT authority from PUBLIC
REVOKE CONNECT ON DATABASE FROM PUBLIC
I don't think it's possible under normal circumstances simply because Administrator is in the sysadm group.
Options I can think of (but haven't tried) include:
Setting the sysadm group to something else ("db2 update dbm cfg using sysadm_group blah"). Check the docs for caveats and gotchas when doing this, as I'm sure there are some.
Stop using OS authentication. Use a different security plugin (8.2 and higher only). This would move the authentication, and thus groups, to a new location (say an LDAP server). Then you just don't add Administrator to the new location, and especially don't add Administrator to the sysadm group again.
On Windows, the database manager configuration parameter SYSADM_GROUP controls who has SYSADMauthority at the instance level. When SYSADM_GROUP is blank (as is the default on Windows), then DB2 defaults to using the Administrators group on the local machine.
To fix this, you can create a new group in Windows and then modify the value of SYSADM_GROUP to use this new group. Make sure that the ID that the DB2 Service runs under belongs to this new group. After making this change, members of the Administrators group will no longer have SYSADM authority.
As Kevin Beck states, you may also want to look at restricting CONNECT authority on databases, too, because by default the CONNECT privilege is granted to PUBLIC.