Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ignore query parameters when matching url in rules. #139

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 3, 2018

Conversation

stszap
Copy link
Contributor

@stszap stszap commented Nov 29, 2018

It seems that oathkeeper compares urls without stripping GET parameters. For example, a rule with

    "match": {
        "url": "http://test.com/test/",
        "methods": ["GET"]
    }

matches http://test.com/test/ but doesn't match http://test.com/test/?param=value. Comments say:

it compares the full request URL (e.g. https://mydomain.com/api/resource) without query parameters of the incoming request

So I guess it's a bug? According to the docs .String() method uses scheme://userinfo@host/path?query#fragment pattern so I tried to fix it by simple Sprintf() and added a test.

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing guidelines
  • I confirm that this pull request does not address a security vulnerability. If this pull request addresses a security
    vulnerability, I confirm that I got green light (please contact hi@ory.sh) from the maintainers to push the changes.
  • I signed the Developer's Certificate of Origin
    by signing my commit(s). You can amend your signature to the most recent commit by using git commit --amend -s. If you
    amend the commit, you might need to force push using git push --force HEAD:<branch>. Please be very careful when using
    force push.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation within the code base (if appropriate)
  • I have documented my changes in the developer guide (if appropriate)

Signed-off-by: Stanislav Zapolsky <stszap@gmail.com>
@aeneasr
Copy link
Member

aeneasr commented Nov 29, 2018

Nice catch. Maybe we should make this configurable? Just merging this could leave people vulnerable that think it's matching query params? What do you think?

@stszap
Copy link
Contributor Author

stszap commented Nov 29, 2018

Well, this behavior was only mentioned in the comments and the docs are not clear about it. I can try to add "ignore_query_params" boolean option to "match" section if security of current users is a concern.

@aeneasr
Copy link
Member

aeneasr commented Nov 29, 2018

Yeah, I think that would be a good idea!

@aeneasr
Copy link
Member

aeneasr commented Nov 29, 2018

So it would be like this then:

    "match": {
        "url": "http://test.com/test/",
        "methods": ["GET"],
        "ignore_query_params": true
    }

@aeneasr
Copy link
Member

aeneasr commented Nov 29, 2018

Or hm, I mean it doesn't really make sense, it's almost impossible to match query params using regex. Maybe it would make more sense like this:

"match": {
    "url": "http://test.com/test/",
    "methods": ["GET"],
    "query_params": {"foo": "<.+>", "bar"}
}

What's your take on that?

@stszap
Copy link
Contributor Author

stszap commented Nov 29, 2018

I think that verifying individual parameters may be too much. It couples an application with oathkeeper and may require pretty complex syntax/options. There can be users who only want to validate certain parameters and just ignore the rest, and other users who want to validate every parameter and deny everything else. Some of params can be arrays and some can be strings. I don't have any concrete arguments agains it but my gut feeling is that get parameters should be left for an application to deal with and there should be a way for oathkeeper to ignore them.

@aeneasr
Copy link
Member

aeneasr commented Dec 3, 2018

Yeah, that makes sense! So let's keep the PR as is and have it ignore query params completely for now. Thank you!

@aeneasr aeneasr merged commit 07eb99b into ory:master Dec 3, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants