wombatu-kun commented on PR #16541:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16541#issuecomment-4539052008

   @nandorKollar good catch — yes, the same `DefaultAzureCredential` fallback 
exists on the ADLS path.
   
   That ADLS exposure is actually called out in #16465 itself: the report notes 
the Key Vault case "is less exposed than the ADLS location issue because it is 
config-driven rather than metadata-driven, but it is still an endpoint-trust 
break." So the ADLS case is known as a separate concern and considered the more 
exposed of the two — there the target storage host comes from table-metadata 
locations rather than a single catalog config property.
   
   I kept this PR scoped to Key Vault on purpose, because the ADLS mitigation 
can't be the same shape. For Key Vault, requiring a catalog-vended credential 
is reasonable since ambient Key Vault auth is a niche setup. For ADLS, 
authenticating to your own storage via a managed identity 
(`DefaultAzureCredential`) is a mainstream, documented production 
configuration, so simply removing the ambient fallback would be a significant 
breaking change. The ADLS case more likely needs a different mitigation (e.g. 
validating/allow-listing the storage host a bearer token is sent to), which 
deserves its own design discussion rather than being folded into this PR.
   
   Since #16465 came in through the private Apache security list, I'd suggest 
the ADLS location case be triaged the same way rather than expanded here. But 
let's land this Key Vault PR first, and I'm happy to help drive the ADLS 
follow-up afterwards.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to