Preserving boom error headers for index pattern exceptions #17725
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
💔 Build Failed |
kimjoar
approved these changes
Apr 16, 2018
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, damn — great find. When I initially added the same code (5009435) it was because Boom.wrap started throwing when it received a "Boom object", so the test case was only focused on that. That's why I ended up removing it again when moving to Boom.boomify in b19c823.
I don't think there are any problems with this approach in the short-term, but I agree that long-term #17724 would be a better approach.
LGTM
spalger
approved these changes
Apr 16, 2018
💔 Build Failed |
💚 Build Succeeded |
kobelb
added a commit
to kobelb/kibana
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2018
kobelb
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2018
💚 Build Succeeded |
kobelb
added
release_note:fix
Team:Security
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes the specific situation outlined here: #9583
This PR does expose the entire Elasticsearch Boom error in the HTTP response, were we concerned about disclosing too much information when doing this previously that we switched to always wrapping it and only maintaining the error message and status code @kjbekkelund ?
A more holistic approach is explored here but it has it's short-comings.
"Release Note: Resolving issue with the index pattern APIs not responding with WWW-Authenticate headers on 401s which caused basic auth via Kibana to not work appropriately in some configurations"