Only inline policies are considered, attached policies are ignored

[morganchristiansson]

So we just tried to run aardvark and repokid on our roles but several of them had no suggested policies.

After debugging repokid for a while it seems like role.policies that is checked only contains inline policies. Attached policies are ignored.

Can attached policies be used as source aswell?

As a workaround we're copying all attached policies to inline policies.

@KorhanOzturk90

[mcpeak]

Hey @morganchristiansson yeah, definitely. We haven't done it yet but it should be a fairly easy change. I'll mark this as an enhancement.

[laurajauch]

Can we discuss the scope of this enhancement? This would add definite value to the product for my team and we're considering if we have the capacity to build it out because we're tired of waiting. :)

Here are a few of my initial questions/thoughts:

1. Does this necessitate changes to Aardvark to collect/return data about managed policies? (By "changes" I mean waiting until the AA API is available.)
2. CloudAux was recently updated to include functions around managed policies, so it seems that including them would be fairly straight-forward. It looks like we could store them in dynamo alongside inline policies, though with some indication that they are managed (probably add a boolean) and with the number of attached entities.
3. For initial implementation, I think it's reasonable to alert on all 'repo-able' permissions but only enable repoing on those managed policies that have exactly one attached entity. It gets more complex when a managed policy is shared among roles.

Thoughts? I'm still familiarizing myself with the project, so there may be elements I've missed.

[mcpeak]

Hey, thanks for the interest in taking this up!

1. I believe Aardvark / AA returns data about any services that are allowed in policy. Whether they are in a managed policy or inline shouldn't matter. This is nice because Aardvark changes are painful :)

2. We could store them alongside with inline policies (with a flag as you suggest) or we can create another field in Dynamo for managed policies. Either seems fine to me.

3. Agreed about complexity of repoing a managed policy shared among roles. We probably want to check whether the policy is attached to only one role in get_repoable_permissions. That function takes a list of permissions, maybe we can add some data about whether they're in a managed policy and if so what the name of the policy is (so we can check).

We'll also want to add a flag to enable/disable this feature, probably in update_role_cache. If the flag isn't passed then update_role_cache won't even list the permissions from managed policies.

[premature-optimization]

So, looks like this is fairly stale, but I'm gonna jump in to add support for non-inline policies as I intend to use Aardvark/RepoKid to clean up an IAM setup at my current position.

So far, I just added a quick print command to the update_role_data definition in repokid/utils/roledata.py and can see all of the non-inline policy data, so RepoKid already has the data in the program, I just need to figure out how to differentiate the two and add a flag as indicated above.

I'll keep updating as I go!

[mcpeak]

@premature-optimization thank you! Please let me know if I can help. I'm happy to jump on a call, bounce ideas, or anything else useful.

[premature-optimization]

@mcpeak That might be super useful! I'm in the networktocode Slack workspace as unironicGUIfan if you want to asynchronously help me out (I work strange hours due to sleep disorders)

Basically, it looks like all of the permissions of non-inline policies still show up in display_role under Policy history, but I can't seem to figure out how it's deciding not to include that policy information in display_role_cache. Once we can figure out that distinction, should be easy enough to add a flag to those permissions

[premature-optimization]

So all of the policy data (including managed policies) is in the functions up to get_role_data, which pulls directly from the dynamo tables. After seeing the full dict for the roles it returns, only the inline policies are included. So I'm working on hunting down what's in charge of writing to the dynamo table to see if I can include the managed policy information as well.

[premature-optimization]

@mcpeak @curtis-turner
Added you both as collaborators to my fork, where I'm posting my debugging/code changes in order to collaborate.

ATM, I got as far as including the additional get_role_managed_policies function to update_role_data and should add the policies along with the inline policies to the current_policies dict (to avoid renaming all variable calls), but looks like it's still not getting the managed policy information correctly.

Right now, I'd imagine that the get_role_managed_policies call is unhappy with the format of the request, or the reply is in a different format than the inline function and it doesn't want to merge the two happily.

Feel free to commit/branch whatever you like in that repo, please be sure not to open a PR against master until we've completed troubleshooting and testing :)

I'll look into this in a couple days, but swamped with other work atm so I appreciate any assistance!

[mcpeak]

Hey @premature-optimization pease join our Gitter and we can start a group chat for those interested. I took a peak at the code this morning. I think it makes sense to convert "update_role_cache" to more generic "update_data". This could handle roles, policies, and anything else in the future. The current "get_account_authorization_details" can easily return managed policy info too. Aardvark already supports. managed policies. There will be some logical differences in the way we actually repo, but they should be easy to overcome. We'll probably need to change the Dynamo table or add a separate one for managed policies.

…

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM, premature-optimization < ***@***.*** > wrote: @ mcpeak ( https://github.com/mcpeak ) @ curtis-turner ( https://github.com/curtis-turner ) Added you both as collaborators to my fork, where I'm posting my debugging/code changes in order to collaborate. ATM, I got as far as including the additional get_role_managed_policies function to update_role_data and should add the policies along with the inline policies to the current_policies dict (to avoid renaming all variable calls), but looks like it's still not getting the managed policy information correctly. Right now, I'd imagine that the get_role_managed_policies call is unhappy with the format of the request, or the reply is in a different format than the inline function and it doesn't want to merge the two happily. Feel free to commit/branch whatever you like in that repo, please be sure not to open a PR against master until we've completed troubleshooting and testing :) I'll look into this in a couple days, but swamped with other work atm so I appreciate any assistance! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ( #33?email_source=notifications&email_token=ACBG7IGTXC3HBP2C2A3DSDDQFUYQLA5CNFSM4DUPVPW2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4ZPZDY#issuecomment-523435151 ) , or mute the thread ( https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACBG7IEILGLGYOX5D2HX72LQFUYQLANCNFSM4DUPVPWQ ).

[mfuellbier]

What's the status on this one? Are you currently working on it? I might have some time end of the month to take a look into it, if there is nobody working on it.

[mcpeak]

I don't think anybody is working on it, despite lots of interest.

[steve-heslouin]

we would be happy to help testing if needed