I'm certainly not trying to spread any FUD about security and EC2.
Security groups are great, I'm a huge fan! Use them!
That said, you might be amazed at how many times Helpful Friendly Junior
Sysadmin has just added every machine to the default security group, and
then enabled 3306 TCP. This is clearly insane behavior.
But the point of a sane default is to keep things operating in a
predictable, reliable, & secure fashion, even when people do insane
things. In this case, compounding potential user insanity by default
binding mysql to 0.0.0.0 would be the most predictable behavior, but also
the least reliable or safe.
To my mind, defaulting to reliability and safety over predictability in
this case is the most sane course of action. Thus my voicing support for
the current default setting in the mysql cookbook.
Thanks,
--Charles
--
On 11/14/12 11:09 AM, "Jeffrey Hulten" < "> > wrote:
>Your other instances cannot access each other unless one of their
>security groups is allowed inbound access. The default SG is configured
>this way.
>
>There is a lot of FUD about security and EC2. Remember that what you have
>is a software based firewall controlling ingress to your box. Your
>packets share wires with other packets, even if you can't see them.
>
>If you think there are issues with AWS security groups then by all means
>add iptables to your hosts and limit access that way.
>
>Also, if you have that level of security requirements you should probably
>be using ssl to protect your data in transit.
>http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/ssl-connections.html
>
>
>
>--
>Jeffrey Hulten
>Principal Consultant at Automated Labs, LLC
> "> 206-853-5216
>Skype: jeffhulten
>
>On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:26 AM, S Ahmed wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I'll look into this further so it sinks in :)
>>
>> BTW, why is ec2 inherently not secure? The default security group
>>doesn't have 3306 open anyhow, so you wouldn't be mooning the entire
>>world per say, only your other instances (which I believe by default all
>>your other instances can access).
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Charles Johnson < "> >
>>wrote:
>> The real problem here is an outdated limitation in mysql.
>>
>> Unfortunately, mysql only takes one bind-address argument rather than
>>an array, so it's impossible to listen on a limited subset of local
>>addresses. You may decide to have mysql listen on all bound IP
>>addresses, or one and only one bound IP address, but you many not listen
>>a subset of all bound IP addresses (unless you bring local firewalls
>>into the picture, but that's another discussion).
>>
>> When running in an inherently insecure environment such as EC2, binding
>>to 0.0.0.0 and allowing connections from any host is an unacceptable
>>default. This leaves an unfortunate dilemma: Either bind to the private
>>IP address and disallow traffic from localhost, or bind to localhost and
>>only allow traffic from self.
>>
>> If the default is to bind to localhost, this will cause countless hours
>>of frustration as people try to figure out why the database isn't
>>accessible from their external servers out of the box. However, since
>>it's possible for a node in EC2 to access its own private IP address and
>>resolve it to a hostname, the default that arguably solves the most
>>problems and creates the least frustration is to bind to the private IP
>>address.
>>
>> Many people get around this problem by using unix sockets for
>>communication to mysql if they're running the app and database on the
>>same node. Unfortunately in your case, JDBC is 100% TCP/IP and doesn't
>>support unix sockets. The solution for you is either to override the
>>cookbook's default bind_address to 127.0.0.1, or to use a template to
>>get the hostname into your application's config file instead of
>>localhost.
>>
>> tl;dr: The default behavior of the cookbook is sane, even though it's
>>inconvenient for many use cases. You'll need to override the cookbook's
>>default attribute back to localhost, or address the database via the
>>hostname instead of localhost.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Charles
>>
>>
>> From: S Ahmed < "> >
>> Reply-To: " "> " < "> >
>> Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:33 AM
>> To: " "> " < "> >
>> Subject: [chef] Re: Re: why does mysql on ec2 bind to priviate i.p?
>>
>> If I set it to 127.0.0.1, does this mean I can't access it from another
>>ec2 server then?
>>
>> The problem is during deployment, I don't know the private i.p in
>>advance and during deployment all my database configuration information
>>has 'localhost' in it. I understand what you guys are saying and it
>>does make sense, I just have to modify my deployment process to first
>>pull in the private ip's for each service (I should be doing this anyhow
>>as eventually not everything is going to fit on a single instance!)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Joshua Timberman < "> >
>>wrote:
>> On 11/13/12 9:28 PM, "S Ahmed" < "> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I noticed when I used the mysql recipe it installs mysql and binds it
>>to
>> >the private i.p on ec2, why is that?
>> >
>> >My application can't connect as it uses 'localhost' (jdbc), but for
>>some
>> >reason it works fine using ruby.
>>
>> The reason for not using localhost is because in the opinion of the
>> cookbook, it is more useful to have the server accessible on the
>>[private]
>> network so that other systems like application servers can connect to
>>it.
>> We use the private address on cloud providers because, as Matt pointed
>> out, it may cost money for external bandwidth. Also, having your
>>database
>> server accessible on the external network is bad :).
>>
>> You can set the attribute `node['mysql']['bind_address']` in a role or
>>on
>> the node itself, to use loopback.
>>
>>
>> For example, in a role:
>>
>> default_attributes(
>> "mysql" => {
>> "bind_address" => "127.0.0.1"
>> }
>> )
>>
>> On the node itself would be the JSON equivalent of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.