add RP API More Secure Defaults Guidance

[Stefan0Anghel]

This PR adds documentation for the RP API More Secure Defaults API writing guidance. It provides clear recommendations on how to structure and implement secure defaults within RP APIs to enhance security and consistency.

[microsoft-github-policy-service]

@Stefan0Anghel please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

• (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

• (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

Contribution License Agreement

This Contribution License Agreement (“Agreement”) is agreed to by the party signing below (“You”),
and conveys certain license rights to Microsoft Corporation and its affiliates (“Microsoft”) for Your
contributions to Microsoft open source projects. This Agreement is effective as of the latest signature
date below.

1. Definitions.
   “Code” means the computer software code, whether in human-readable or machine-executable form,
   that is delivered by You to Microsoft under this Agreement.
   “Project” means any of the projects owned or managed by Microsoft and offered under a license
   approved by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org).
   “Submit” is the act of uploading, submitting, transmitting, or distributing code or other content to any
   Project, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control
   systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Project for the purpose of
   discussing and improving that Project, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or
   otherwise designated in writing by You as “Not a Submission.”
   “Submission” means the Code and any other copyrightable material Submitted by You, including any
   associated comments and documentation.
2. Your Submission. You must agree to the terms of this Agreement before making a Submission to any
   Project. This Agreement covers any and all Submissions that You, now or in the future (except as
   described in Section 4 below), Submit to any Project.
3. Originality of Work. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work.
   Should You wish to Submit materials that are not Your original work, You may Submit them separately
   to the Project if You (a) retain all copyright and license information that was in the materials as You
   received them, (b) in the description accompanying Your Submission, include the phrase “Submission
   containing materials of a third party:” followed by the names of the third party and any licenses or other
   restrictions of which You are aware, and (c) follow any other instructions in the Project’s written
   guidelines concerning Submissions.
4. Your Employer. References to “employer” in this Agreement include Your employer or anyone else
   for whom You are acting in making Your Submission, e.g. as a contractor, vendor, or agent. If Your
   Submission is made in the course of Your work for an employer or Your employer has intellectual
   property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable law, You must secure permission from Your
   employer to make the Submission before signing this Agreement. In that case, the term “You” in this
   Agreement will refer to You and the employer collectively. If You change employers in the future and
   desire to Submit additional Submissions for the new employer, then You agree to sign a new Agreement
   and secure permission from the new employer before Submitting those Submissions.
5. Licenses.

• Copyright License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submission directly or
  indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the
  Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute
  the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third
  parties.
• Patent License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submission directly or
  indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license under
  Your patent claims that are necessarily infringed by the Submission or the combination of the
  Submission with the Project to which it was Submitted to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and
  import or otherwise dispose of the Submission alone or with the Project.
• Other Rights Reserved. Each party reserves all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
  No additional licenses or rights whatsoever (including, without limitation, any implied licenses) are
  granted by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise.

6. Representations and Warranties. You represent that You are legally entitled to grant the above
   licenses. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work (except as You may
   have disclosed under Section 3). You represent that You have secured permission from Your employer to
   make the Submission in cases where Your Submission is made in the course of Your work for Your
   employer or Your employer has intellectual property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable
   law. If You are signing this Agreement on behalf of Your employer, You represent and warrant that You
   have the necessary authority to bind the listed employer to the obligations contained in this Agreement.
   You are not expected to provide support for Your Submission, unless You choose to do so. UNLESS
   REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING, AND EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES
   EXPRESSLY STATED IN SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 6, THE SUBMISSION PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS
   PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY OF
   NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
7. Notice to Microsoft. You agree to notify Microsoft in writing of any facts or circumstances of which
   You later become aware that would make Your representations in this Agreement inaccurate in any
   respect.
8. Information about Submissions. You agree that contributions to Projects and information about
   contributions may be maintained indefinitely and disclosed publicly, including Your name and other
   information that You submit with Your Submission.
9. Governing Law/Jurisdiction. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and
   the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts sitting in King County,
   Washington, unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, in which case the parties consent to
   exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Superior Court of King County, Washington. The parties waive all
   defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens.
10. Entire Agreement/Assignment. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties, and
    supersedes any and all prior agreements, understandings or communications, written or oral, between
    the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be assigned by Microsoft.

[MushMal]

Provided minor comments.

[MushMal]

Rename to a more presentable display name instead of RP-API-MSD?

[JeffreyRichter]

Why do RP-specific guidelines go in the data-plane guidelines?
Maybe we want to adopt this for data-plane; I haven't reviewed this PR enough to know.

[MushMal]

RP -> ARM Resource Provider?

Something like: "### ARM Resource Provider More Secure Default Parameter Guidance"

[mikekistler]

This is not the right document for ARM API guidelines.

[JeffreyRichter]

True, this document is not the right place for arm/rp guidelines. However, I think adding some of these guidelines to this document for data plane services is perfectly okay

[MushMal]

...either more secure default parameter values or making the previously optional parameter as required"

[johanste]

Defaulting vs. explicitness is a difficult trade-off.

Default values allow the service to improve its security posture over time with new capabilities without forcing clients to change. Having clients explicitly "pin" values can slow down adoption of new capabilities. Adding new required parameters means breaking changes. Which slows down adoption of new api versions. Which in turn slows down the ability to use the new features.

In practical terms, we need to have a default value for new security related properties when we migrate previously existing resources. That doesn't have to mean that we use the same default values in the public api definitions, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do either.

[JeffreyRichter]

I have had numerous conversations about services exposing default values for properties and have been meaning to write a guideline about it. The guideline would go something like this: when a structure/model is first introduced by a service (V1 of structure), very few (if any) of the properties should have default values. Customer must explicitly select values for the properties. This prevents breaking changes should the service want to change a default since there are no defaults. Any new properties that are added to the structure/model in the future (V2+) must have default values in order to avoid breaking changes.

[MushMal]

...as "required", especially if security-sensitive.

[MushMal]

...define a default value which is deemed as more secure

[JeffreyRichter]

I would say that there just shouldn't be a default and that the property is required - period.

[MushMal]

• Providing a concise but descriptive description of the parameters in the API

[JeffreyRichter]

I just want to be clear that changing a default value is a breaking change and requires approval from the breaking change review board. This can all be avoided by not having defaults and instead have customers explicitly select what they desire.

[johanste]

To expand on this (and why it is important for services to not make assumptions about this value) - client request id is often used to group a set of "logical" client requests. Retries will use the same client request id. I believe that tools like the azure cli may use the same client request id for each request made in a single command execution.

[JeffreyRichter]

I agree with Johan here. I consider this header and it's value purely for client benefit. I don't think it has to be a guid. I think a service should specify a max length and perhaps valid characters. But I don't think more than this is required. Also, what is motivating that a service MUST log this value?

[mikekistler]

What is a "security parameter"?

[JeffreyRichter]

I agree with Johan here. I consider this header and it's value purely for client benefit. I don't think it has to be a guid. I think a service should specify a max length and perhaps valid characters. But I don't think more than this is required. Also, what is motivating that a service MUST log this value?

[JeffreyRichter]

Again, I don't see why this must be a guid. A lot of people are using ULIDs instead of UUIDs now and we should allow a service to use whatever value is useful for the service. Other than this, I agree with the rest of this guideline.

[JeffreyRichter]

True, this document is not the right place for arm/rp guidelines. However, I think adding some of these guidelines to this document for data plane services is perfectly okay

[JeffreyRichter]

I have had numerous conversations about services exposing default values for properties and have been meaning to write a guideline about it. The guideline would go something like this: when a structure/model is first introduced by a service (V1 of structure), very few (if any) of the properties should have default values. Customer must explicitly select values for the properties. This prevents breaking changes should the service want to change a default since there are no defaults. Any new properties that are added to the structure/model in the future (V2+) must have default values in order to avoid breaking changes.

[JeffreyRichter]

I would say that there just shouldn't be a default and that the property is required - period.

[JeffreyRichter]

I just want to be clear that changing a default value is a breaking change and requires approval from the breaking change review board. This can all be avoided by not having defaults and instead have customers explicitly select what they desire.