nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc <phroc...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Having the ability to disable controlling mechanism for agents
Date Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:11:27 GMT
Aldrin ( and Joe ) ,
  Thanks for your response. The transmission mechanism can be disabled and
is configurable. I'm speaking more to being able to configure C2 as a
triage mechanism that can work locally if desired. I don't believe I made
that clear.

  One caveat I did not discuss was that if a developer were to build his or
her agent, they are free to remove this component or make it configurable.

  My thought process was that if we allow C2 to be disabled in the default
agent, we have no path of triage. As I vaguely alluded to in the first
E-mail scripts in a localized environment can be used to piggy back on C2
to provide debug information and control the agent. Requiring these
features gives us a path to help with deployment and control of agents.
DevOps could then make their own scripts if needed to piggy back on C2
capabilities, but allowing it to be disabled may lose this key
functionality.

   I suppose the caveat emptor exists for developers building their own
agents just as much as it would for those disabling C2, but my opinion on
requiring it was attempting to avoid the users who deploy MiNiFI-cpp,
disabling "localized command and control" and have no way of triaging the
problem as it occurs -- or being able to give us information to triage.  Do
either of you ( or anyone else? ) believe this is an unfounded fear since
the user is free to make his or her choice about their deployment?

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com> wrote:

> My feel is that there should be a way to enable/disable C2 as the user sees
> fit.
>
> There may be other implementations that take their own approach but I can
> see many users taking the one that is currently in the codebase as it may
> cover the majority of their needs.  I could imagine that some would be
> averse to having that functionality "always on" but would still appreciate
> the option of the capability when they wanted to dig in after the fact and
> are okay with a config change (and restart if needed).
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marc <phrocker@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening Everyone,
> >
> >    A pull request exists to introduce some very limited command and
> control
> > capabilities. In it one of the developers questioned why we were
> attempting
> > to send a heartbeat to a command and control server when it was not
> > configured. That's a very valid point.  By design we have a C2 agent that
> > uses a protocol to transmit/receive messages and/or commands. If the
> > protocol isn't configured we're effectively neutered, but we still have
> the
> > ability to have local control through scripts or executables, so I would
> > like to see C2 a permanent aspect of the MINIFi CPP agent that we have.
> >
> >    If protocol endpoints aren't configured as the reviewer noted we
> > shouldn't be attempting them, so that point is settled ( as in he is
> > correct ), but the penultimate question is whether or not we should allow
> > C2 to be disabled by design. Should this feature be pluggable to the
> agent?
> > My initial design was that it should not since allowing command and
> control
> > to be disabled appeared antithetical with its intent; however, I'd love
> to
> > hear other input as I may be entirely off base ( sometimes I'm not even
> on
> > the right ball field!).
> >
> >   Given the previous sentiment that a C2 agent could be controlled
> locally,
> > and the capabilities can be used for localized debug/control, should we
> > ever allow C2 to disabled from the default agent? I acknowledge that
> others
> > may build their own agents without command and control capabilities, so I
> > can only ask this question in regards to the agent that we are building
> and
> > including into the Apache MiNiFi CPP project.
> >
> >   TL;DR : Should we allow C2 capabilities to be disabled?
> >
> >
> >   Thank for your time and consideration,
> >   Marc
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message