-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 474
[Cloud Security] Updating the CSPM integration with deployment_mode and secrets #11271
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
[Cloud Security] Updating the CSPM integration with deployment_mode and secrets #11271
Conversation
🚀 Benchmarks reportTo see the full report comment with |
cb06892
to
01fbfe3
Compare
💚 Build Succeeded
History
|
|
Pinging @elastic/security-service-integrations (Team:Security-Service Integrations) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good just want to confirm if we should secrets
as false
@@ -113,6 +116,7 @@ streams: | |||
multi: false | |||
required: false | |||
show_user: true | |||
secret: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should secret access key be true? Security concern regards of exposing secret access keys
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The lint for the integration identified these fields as needing the secret
attributes, likely because they have the name access_key and session_key.
Since we already have other fields with the secret
attribute set to true
, I assumed these were not meant to be masked like a password.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
okay got it! Thanks!
@@ -55,6 +56,7 @@ streams: | |||
multi: false | |||
required: false | |||
show_user: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should secret access key be true? We don't want to expose secret?
@@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ streams: | |||
multi: false | |||
required: false | |||
show_user: true | |||
secret: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should shared credentials file secret be true?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ streams: | |||
multi: false | |||
required: false | |||
show_user: true | |||
secret: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any security concern regards adding secret as false?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I missed secrets change and want to address security concerns
Package cloud_security_posture - 1.11.0-preview10 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/search?package=cloud_security_posture |
Package cloud_security_posture - 1.11.0 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/cloud_security_posture/1.11.0/ |
…nd secrets (elastic#11271) * Updating the CSPM integration with deployment_mode and secrets * buming version * changelog
…nd secrets (elastic#11271) * Updating the CSPM integration with deployment_mode and secrets * buming version * changelog
Proposed commit message
We added
deployment_modes
to the CSPM integration and thesecret
attribute for the inputs that the linting thought should have that set.Checklist
changelog.yml
file.How to test this PR locally
Related issues