[Fleet] Use Kibana Authz for API authorization #205335
Open
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
…t --include-path /api/status --include-path /api/alerting/rule/ --include-path /api/alerting/rules --include-path /api/actions --include-path /api/security/role --include-path /api/spaces --include-path /api/fleet --include-path /api/dashboards --update'
…o feature-kibana-authz
…t --include-path /api/status --include-path /api/alerting/rule/ --include-path /api/alerting/rules --include-path /api/actions --include-path /api/security/role --include-path /api/spaces --include-path /api/fleet --include-path /api/dashboards --update'
…o feature-kibana-authz
nchaulet
added
release_note:skip
…t --include-path /api/status --include-path /api/alerting/rule/ --include-path /api/alerting/rules --include-path /api/actions --include-path /api/security/role --include-path /api/spaces --include-path /api/fleet --include-path /api/dashboards --update'
…t --include-path /api/status --include-path /api/alerting/rule/ --include-path /api/alerting/rules --include-path /api/actions --include-path /api/security/role --include-path /api/spaces --include-path /api/fleet --include-path /api/dashboards --update'
…o feature-kibana-authz
nchaulet
added
the
Team:Fleet
|
Pinging @elastic/fleet (Team:Fleet) |
@elena-shostak what do you think about this request? |
…t --include-path /api/status --include-path /api/alerting/rule/ --include-path /api/alerting/rules --include-path /api/actions --include-path /api/security/role --include-path /api/spaces --include-path /api/fleet --include-path /api/dashboards --update'
juliaElastic
reviewed
Jan 3, 2025
x-pack/platform/plugins/shared/fleet/server/routes/epm/index.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
juliaElastic
reviewed
Jan 3, 2025
x-pack/platform/plugins/shared/fleet/server/routes/preconfiguration/index.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Probably not, the previous response schema changes are not backported, we would get a lot of conflicts in backport. |
…o feature-kibana-authz
|
@elasticmachine merge upstream |
…o feature-kibana-authz
…t --include-path /api/status --include-path /api/alerting/rule/ --include-path /api/alerting/rules --include-path /api/actions --include-path /api/security/role --include-path /api/spaces --include-path /api/fleet --include-path /api/dashboards --update'
…o feature-kibana-authz
…t --include-path /api/status --include-path /api/alerting/rule/ --include-path /api/alerting/rules --include-path /api/actions --include-path /api/security/role --include-path /api/spaces --include-path /api/fleet --include-path /api/dashboards --update'
💚 Build Succeeded
Metrics [docs]
History
cc @nchaulet |
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.
Summary
Resolve #203170
Use Kibana authz instead of having custom logic for Fleet when it's possible. This add the required privileges to the generated open API doc.
Privileges are tested with API integration tests, so I do not think we will introduce a regression or a breaking change with that PR.
It was not possible to migrate all routes as some scenario are not yet supported like a route need
(privilege1 AND privilege2) OR (privilege3 AND privilege 4)@legrego do you think it will be possible to support this kind of rules? do you want me to create an issue for that.Do we want to backport this to 8.x?