RBAC not working as expected when trying to lock namespace
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to lock down a namespace in kubernetes using RBAC so I followed this tutorial.
I'm working on a baremetal cluster (no minikube, no cloud provider) and installed kubernetes using Ansible.
I created the folowing namespace :
apiVersion: v1
kind: Namespace
metadata:
name: lockdown
Service account :
apiVersion: v1
kind: ServiceAccount
metadata:
name: sa-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
Role :
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups: [""] # "" indicates the core API group
resources: [""]
verbs: [""]
RoleBinding :
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
And finally I tested the authorization using the next command
kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
This SHOULD be returning "No" but I got "Yes" :-(
What am I doing wrong ?
Thx
kubernetes roles kubectl rbac
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to lock down a namespace in kubernetes using RBAC so I followed this tutorial.
I'm working on a baremetal cluster (no minikube, no cloud provider) and installed kubernetes using Ansible.
I created the folowing namespace :
apiVersion: v1
kind: Namespace
metadata:
name: lockdown
Service account :
apiVersion: v1
kind: ServiceAccount
metadata:
name: sa-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
Role :
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups: [""] # "" indicates the core API group
resources: [""]
verbs: [""]
RoleBinding :
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
And finally I tested the authorization using the next command
kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
This SHOULD be returning "No" but I got "Yes" :-(
What am I doing wrong ?
Thx
kubernetes roles kubectl rbac
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to lock down a namespace in kubernetes using RBAC so I followed this tutorial.
I'm working on a baremetal cluster (no minikube, no cloud provider) and installed kubernetes using Ansible.
I created the folowing namespace :
apiVersion: v1
kind: Namespace
metadata:
name: lockdown
Service account :
apiVersion: v1
kind: ServiceAccount
metadata:
name: sa-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
Role :
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups: [""] # "" indicates the core API group
resources: [""]
verbs: [""]
RoleBinding :
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
And finally I tested the authorization using the next command
kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
This SHOULD be returning "No" but I got "Yes" :-(
What am I doing wrong ?
Thx
kubernetes roles kubectl rbac
I'm trying to lock down a namespace in kubernetes using RBAC so I followed this tutorial.
I'm working on a baremetal cluster (no minikube, no cloud provider) and installed kubernetes using Ansible.
I created the folowing namespace :
apiVersion: v1
kind: Namespace
metadata:
name: lockdown
Service account :
apiVersion: v1
kind: ServiceAccount
metadata:
name: sa-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
Role :
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups: [""] # "" indicates the core API group
resources: [""]
verbs: [""]
RoleBinding :
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
And finally I tested the authorization using the next command
kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
This SHOULD be returning "No" but I got "Yes" :-(
What am I doing wrong ?
Thx
kubernetes roles kubectl rbac
kubernetes roles kubectl rbac
asked Nov 19 at 16:21
Doctor
8011126
8011126
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
A couple possibilities:
- are you running the "can-i" check against the secured port or unsecured port (add --v=6 to see). Requests made against the unsecured (non-https) port are always authorized.
- RBAC is additive, so if there is an existing clusterrolebinding or rolebinding granting "get pods" permissions to that service account (or one of the groups system:serviceaccounts:lockdown, system:serviceaccounts, or system:authenticated), then that service account will have that permission. You cannot "ungrant" permissions by binding more restrictive roles
Thanks for your answer ! Unfortunatly my cluster died :-( - I'll need more time to test this solution !
– Doctor
Nov 20 at 16:22
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I finally found what was the problem.
The role and rolebinding must be created inside the targeted namespace.
I changed the following role and rolebinding types by specifying the namespace inside the yaml directly.
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
namespace: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups:
- ""
resources:
- pods
verbs:
- get
- watch
- list
---
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
In this example I gave permission to the user sa-lockdown to get, watch and list the pods in the namespace lockdown.
Now if I ask to get the pods : kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return yes.
On the contrary if ask to get the deployments : kubectl auth can-i get deployments --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return no.
You can also leave the files like they were in the question and simply create them using kubectl create -f <file> -n lockdown
.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53378787%2frbac-not-working-as-expected-when-trying-to-lock-namespace%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
A couple possibilities:
- are you running the "can-i" check against the secured port or unsecured port (add --v=6 to see). Requests made against the unsecured (non-https) port are always authorized.
- RBAC is additive, so if there is an existing clusterrolebinding or rolebinding granting "get pods" permissions to that service account (or one of the groups system:serviceaccounts:lockdown, system:serviceaccounts, or system:authenticated), then that service account will have that permission. You cannot "ungrant" permissions by binding more restrictive roles
Thanks for your answer ! Unfortunatly my cluster died :-( - I'll need more time to test this solution !
– Doctor
Nov 20 at 16:22
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
A couple possibilities:
- are you running the "can-i" check against the secured port or unsecured port (add --v=6 to see). Requests made against the unsecured (non-https) port are always authorized.
- RBAC is additive, so if there is an existing clusterrolebinding or rolebinding granting "get pods" permissions to that service account (or one of the groups system:serviceaccounts:lockdown, system:serviceaccounts, or system:authenticated), then that service account will have that permission. You cannot "ungrant" permissions by binding more restrictive roles
Thanks for your answer ! Unfortunatly my cluster died :-( - I'll need more time to test this solution !
– Doctor
Nov 20 at 16:22
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
A couple possibilities:
- are you running the "can-i" check against the secured port or unsecured port (add --v=6 to see). Requests made against the unsecured (non-https) port are always authorized.
- RBAC is additive, so if there is an existing clusterrolebinding or rolebinding granting "get pods" permissions to that service account (or one of the groups system:serviceaccounts:lockdown, system:serviceaccounts, or system:authenticated), then that service account will have that permission. You cannot "ungrant" permissions by binding more restrictive roles
A couple possibilities:
- are you running the "can-i" check against the secured port or unsecured port (add --v=6 to see). Requests made against the unsecured (non-https) port are always authorized.
- RBAC is additive, so if there is an existing clusterrolebinding or rolebinding granting "get pods" permissions to that service account (or one of the groups system:serviceaccounts:lockdown, system:serviceaccounts, or system:authenticated), then that service account will have that permission. You cannot "ungrant" permissions by binding more restrictive roles
answered Nov 20 at 0:34
Jordan Liggitt
6,7612522
6,7612522
Thanks for your answer ! Unfortunatly my cluster died :-( - I'll need more time to test this solution !
– Doctor
Nov 20 at 16:22
add a comment |
Thanks for your answer ! Unfortunatly my cluster died :-( - I'll need more time to test this solution !
– Doctor
Nov 20 at 16:22
Thanks for your answer ! Unfortunatly my cluster died :-( - I'll need more time to test this solution !
– Doctor
Nov 20 at 16:22
Thanks for your answer ! Unfortunatly my cluster died :-( - I'll need more time to test this solution !
– Doctor
Nov 20 at 16:22
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I finally found what was the problem.
The role and rolebinding must be created inside the targeted namespace.
I changed the following role and rolebinding types by specifying the namespace inside the yaml directly.
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
namespace: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups:
- ""
resources:
- pods
verbs:
- get
- watch
- list
---
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
In this example I gave permission to the user sa-lockdown to get, watch and list the pods in the namespace lockdown.
Now if I ask to get the pods : kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return yes.
On the contrary if ask to get the deployments : kubectl auth can-i get deployments --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return no.
You can also leave the files like they were in the question and simply create them using kubectl create -f <file> -n lockdown
.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I finally found what was the problem.
The role and rolebinding must be created inside the targeted namespace.
I changed the following role and rolebinding types by specifying the namespace inside the yaml directly.
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
namespace: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups:
- ""
resources:
- pods
verbs:
- get
- watch
- list
---
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
In this example I gave permission to the user sa-lockdown to get, watch and list the pods in the namespace lockdown.
Now if I ask to get the pods : kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return yes.
On the contrary if ask to get the deployments : kubectl auth can-i get deployments --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return no.
You can also leave the files like they were in the question and simply create them using kubectl create -f <file> -n lockdown
.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I finally found what was the problem.
The role and rolebinding must be created inside the targeted namespace.
I changed the following role and rolebinding types by specifying the namespace inside the yaml directly.
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
namespace: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups:
- ""
resources:
- pods
verbs:
- get
- watch
- list
---
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
In this example I gave permission to the user sa-lockdown to get, watch and list the pods in the namespace lockdown.
Now if I ask to get the pods : kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return yes.
On the contrary if ask to get the deployments : kubectl auth can-i get deployments --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return no.
You can also leave the files like they were in the question and simply create them using kubectl create -f <file> -n lockdown
.
I finally found what was the problem.
The role and rolebinding must be created inside the targeted namespace.
I changed the following role and rolebinding types by specifying the namespace inside the yaml directly.
kind: Role
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
metadata:
name: lockdown
namespace: lockdown
rules:
- apiGroups:
- ""
resources:
- pods
verbs:
- get
- watch
- list
---
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: rb-lockdown
namespace: lockdown
subjects:
- kind: ServiceAccount
name: sa-lockdown
roleRef:
kind: Role
name: lockdown
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
In this example I gave permission to the user sa-lockdown to get, watch and list the pods in the namespace lockdown.
Now if I ask to get the pods : kubectl auth can-i get pods --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return yes.
On the contrary if ask to get the deployments : kubectl auth can-i get deployments --namespace lockdown --as system:serviceaccount:lockdown:sa-lockdown
it will return no.
You can also leave the files like they were in the question and simply create them using kubectl create -f <file> -n lockdown
.
edited Nov 26 at 10:27
answered Nov 22 at 14:02
Doctor
8011126
8011126
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53378787%2frbac-not-working-as-expected-when-trying-to-lock-namespace%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown