Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 23, 2023. It is now read-only.

Implement processors/sanitization API #59

Closed
dcramer opened this issue Nov 14, 2013 · 13 comments
Closed

Implement processors/sanitization API #59

dcramer opened this issue Nov 14, 2013 · 13 comments

Comments

@dcramer
Copy link
Member

dcramer commented Nov 14, 2013

No description provided.

@defunctzombie
Copy link
Contributor

What is this? Could you give some more details or a link to what should be implemented?

@mattrobenolt
Copy link
Contributor

@defunctzombie In raven-python, there is logic to check each value if it's sensitive before sending it to Sentry. So say, passwords or CC#s, etc.

@defunctzombie
Copy link
Contributor

Ah that type of sanitization. Do you have a link to an example of that logic in the python one? I kinda feel this is outside the scope of this lib but maybe an example will clear that up. This lib should log what you tell it to log.

@mattrobenolt
Copy link
Contributor

I disagree. This is a fundamental thing our clients do to prevent accidentally leaking sensitive information.

Effectively this: https://github.com/getsentry/raven-python/blob/master/raven/processors.py

More emphasis on having a way to hook in processors that Raven can run and you could supply your own if you wanted. But the core needs the ability to run a set of processors.

@defunctzombie
Copy link
Contributor

Oh I see because some of those can't be sanitized beforehand (especially the stacktrace ones). Is this sanitization code provided by the module or does the end user provide that code you linked? If it is module provided why not just do it in the module?

How do you hook new ones into the python lib? An option when creating the logging client?

@dcramer
Copy link
Member Author

dcramer commented Dec 11, 2013

Raven(processors=[...])

@amccausl
Copy link

Is this being worked on or would a pull request be considered?

@mattrobenolt
Copy link
Contributor

Feel free. :) It's not being worked on my anyone that I know of.

@andyuk
Copy link

andyuk commented Jan 28, 2015

Yes please - I'd like this feature. Security should be top priority. Obviously not the case here. Free coffee for first person to issue a pull request for this.

@dcramer
Copy link
Member Author

dcramer commented Jan 28, 2015

While not ideal, data still gets scrubbed on the server.

I would -1 our existing processors API as its kind of shitty, and really what we want to do is just have a set of commands that take the data input and give the data output.

@SimonSchick
Copy link

SimonSchick commented Jul 12, 2017

You can use shouldSendCallback or dataCallback to do scrubbing, it gets passed all log data by reference.

@SimonSchick
Copy link

Oh god I just noticed how old this issue is, @dcramer shouldn't this be closed considering there is dataCallback?

@dcramer
Copy link
Member Author

dcramer commented Jul 19, 2017

@SimonSchick thanks! we're not great at managing all of our issue trackers yet today :/

@dcramer dcramer closed this as completed Jul 19, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants