NIFI-16282 Add Property Encryption Provider framework extension

[exceptionfactory]

Summary

NIFI-16282 Adds PropertyEncryptionProvider as a new framework interface in nifi-framework-api and provides an initial password-based implementation.

This initial set of changes includes the interface definition and framework extension loading without wiring the changes into framework components. Subsequent pull requests will introduce compatible integration with existing call sites. This provides the opportunity for review of the interface definition along with the first implementation that uses existing application properties.

The FlowControllerConfiguration class adds the propertyEncryptionProvider Bean, but allows it to be null when not configured since it is not yet used.

The new NAR bundle includes the Bouncy Castle Provider library to support existing usage of Argon2 for key derivation.

Tracking

Please complete the following tracking steps prior to pull request creation.

Issue Tracking

• Apache NiFi Jira issue created

Pull Request Tracking

• Pull Request title starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, such as NIFI-00000
• Pull Request commit message starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, as such NIFI-00000
• Pull request contains commits signed with a registered key indicating Verified status

Pull Request Formatting

• Pull Request based on current revision of the main branch
• Pull Request refers to a feature branch with one commit containing changes

Verification

Please indicate the verification steps performed prior to pull request creation.

Build

• Build completed using ./mvnw clean install -P contrib-check
  • JDK 21
  • JDK 25

Licensing

• New dependencies are compatible with the Apache License 2.0 according to the License Policy
• New dependencies are documented in applicable LICENSE and NOTICE files

Documentation

• Documentation formatting appears as expected in rendered files

[pvillard31]

LGTM and happy to approve/merge as-is but left a comment for consideration.

[pvillard31]

Just curious, is the use of Map<SensitivePropertyAttribute, String> intended to limit the context to framework-defined attributes? Future providers might need additional context (cluster, tenant, data domain, key alias for key selection, or external audit records). Would Map<String, String> with constants for NiFi defined keys provide that extension point while preserving standard names? Something like

public record SensitivePropertyContext(
        SensitivePropertyCategory category,
        Map<SensitivePropertyAttribute, String> attributes,
        Map<String, String> additionalAttributes
) {
}

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks @pvillard31, that's a good point, I changed the attributes Map key to String. Although it is a bit more loose than the additionalAttributes approach, it follows the general framework pattern of attributes with reserved names.

[pvillard31]

Thanks @exceptionfactory - that works for me, I'm a +1