Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

vault-root token for configurer in transit autounseal configuration #1768

Open
johnny990 opened this issue Jan 17, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

vault-root token for configurer in transit autounseal configuration #1768

johnny990 opened this issue Jan 17, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@johnny990
Copy link

johnny990 commented Jan 17, 2023

Hi,
I've tried to play with bank-vaults and transit autounseal feature as described in this blog: https://banzaicloud.com/blog/vault-transit-unseal-k8s/
I noticed that vault-unseal-keys with root token is required for configurer and it is not quite good from the security perspective.

According to the description in CR (https://github.com/banzaicloud/bank-vaults/blob/main/operator/deploy/cr-transit-unseal.yaml):

# Even if unsealing will be done via the Transit Auto-Unseal flow the root token
  # and recovery keys will be stored in Kubernetes Secrets if not defined otherwise,
  # not highly secure, but this is just an example, in production please use one of
  # the KMS based options.
  # unsealConfig:

Is it possible to have this secret optional? As I understand, in general it could be possible to have configurer work the same way as autounsealing, I mean via mutating webhook, we just need to assign admin role to the kubernetes service account?

Or maybe I'm doing something wrong and somebody could guide me how to achieve autounsealing of tenant vault without having any secrets/credentials with root token, just authenticate via kubernetes service account/role and mutating webhook?

Or the only option is to put root token to the central vault where autounseal token is?

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2023

Thank you for your contribution! This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has no recent activity in the last 60 days. It will be closed in 20 days, if no further activity occurs. If this issue is still relevant, please leave a comment to let us know, and the stale label will be automatically removed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR that has become stale and will be auto-closed. label Dec 3, 2023
@ramizpolic ramizpolic added question and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR that has become stale and will be auto-closed. labels Dec 22, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the question label Feb 11, 2024
Copy link

Thank you for your contribution! This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has no recent activity in the last 60 days. It will be closed in 20 days, if no further activity occurs. If this issue is still relevant, please leave a comment to let us know, and the stale label will be automatically removed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR that has become stale and will be auto-closed. label Apr 14, 2024
@csatib02 csatib02 removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR that has become stale and will be auto-closed. label Apr 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants