Add production ACL policies #10
Open
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
Signed-off-by: Alexander Scheel <[email protected]>
cipherboy
requested review from
OliverShang,
Two-Hearts and
shizhMSFT
as code owners
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
\o As promised (though, late!), here's the ACL policies I was thinking about. I've linked to our tutorial about configuring an ACL policy for instructions on provisioning it, though note that this depends on the auth method used (for linking token creation to specific policies).
One comment: Vault 1.15 is right around the corner, and with it comes the mentioned X509 support within Transit. As this plugin isn't yet released, it seems like it might be a good time to drop the dependency on KVv2 and instead rely just on Transit. Happy to provide a PR if desired.
(Also, I was noticing that it seems like the path to Transit or KV aren't configurable -- is there a pattern for providing configuration information to plugins? A lot of customers won't use a fixed transit in the root namespace).