131 lines
No EOL
5.4 KiB
Markdown
131 lines
No EOL
5.4 KiB
Markdown
# Evaluation of secret management schemes
|
|
|
|
2024-12-03 Robert, Nicolas, Valentin
|
|
|
|
## Requirements
|
|
|
|
- Store and manage secrets in a central place
|
|
- Must be able to rotate keys (some state management)
|
|
- Minimal state on contributors' end, ideally exactly one per-user credential or even SSO
|
|
|
|
## Non-requirements
|
|
|
|
- Don't need (or need only very basic) RBAC, all contributors are equal (maybe infra admins have special access)
|
|
- Components which require secrets don't have to be a secret (this would be a requirement for personal setups, where we don't want to leak e.g. which accounts exist)
|
|
- No need to retrieve secrets for very old versions
|
|
- No need for forward secrecy (thoroughly destroying keys as required by e.g. secure messaging protocols)
|
|
|
|
## Design considerations
|
|
|
|
- Storing secrets
|
|
|
|
Some secrets need to be persisted, and there are multiple formats and technologies to do that.
|
|
|
|
- Managing secrets
|
|
|
|
Secrets need to be shared with contributors, and changed or rotated.
|
|
Different systems have different degrees of comfort for these operations.
|
|
|
|
- Deploying secrets
|
|
|
|
Secrets need to be made available to programs and services.
|
|
|
|
- Versioning
|
|
|
|
For key rotation we need at least two versions: old to access the machine, new for rotating in
|
|
|
|
- Setup complexity
|
|
|
|
Different systems have different requirements to get going, and may require more or less manual intervention for new contributors. This distinguishes:
|
|
|
|
- complexity to set up for experts
|
|
- complexity to contribute as a beginner
|
|
|
|
- Scalability, sustainability
|
|
|
|
Questions to consider:
|
|
- What if a contributor works on 100 such projects?
|
|
- What if a project has 100 contributors?
|
|
- What if a project runs over 10 years, how much effort does secret handling incur?
|
|
- What if someone messes up the central server?
|
|
- How fast can we set up a working system?
|
|
- How hard is it to migrate from one scheme to another?
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
|Name|management|deployment|storage|versioning|setup|scalability|
|
|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|
|
|[agenix]|yes (CLI)|yes (tempfiles)|repo ([age])|Git|[partially manual](#agenix-setup)|[details](#agenix-scalability)|
|
|
|[sops-nix]|yes (CLI)|yes (tempfiles)|repo ([SOPS])|Git|[partially manual](#sops-nix-setup)|[more moving parts than agenix](#sops-nix-scalability)|
|
|
|[Vaultwarden]|yes (web GUI)|no|database|yes, on demand|[details](#Vaultwarden-setup)|[more up-front effort](#Vaultwarden-scalability)|
|
|
|ssh/scp|yes (manual) |yes (manual)|per-user|manually|[details](#sshscp-setup)|[details](#sshscp-scalability)|
|
|
|
|
[agenix]: https://github.com/ryantm/agenix
|
|
[age]: https://github.com/FiloSottile/age
|
|
[sops-nix]: https://github.com/Mic92/sops-nix
|
|
[SOPS]: https://github.com/getsops/sops
|
|
[LoadCredential]: https://systemd.io/CREDENTIALS/
|
|
[Vaultwarden]: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden
|
|
|
|
## Details on setup complexity
|
|
|
|
### agenix setup
|
|
|
|
- include module into configuration
|
|
- manage per-user ssh public keys
|
|
- each user needs to manage their public keys manually
|
|
|
|
### sops-nix setup
|
|
|
|
- include module into configuration
|
|
- manage per-user ssh public keys
|
|
- each user needs to manage their public keys manually
|
|
|
|
### Vaultwarden setup
|
|
|
|
- deploy Vaultwarden, set up backups
|
|
- manage per-user authentication with Vaultwarden
|
|
|
|
### ssh/scp setup
|
|
|
|
- each contributor has to manage private keys and ssh config manually
|
|
- have to take care of distribution of secrets and deployment separately
|
|
|
|
## Details on scalability
|
|
|
|
### agenix scalability
|
|
|
|
- allows reusing ssh key workflows
|
|
|
|
### sops-nix scalability
|
|
|
|
- some extra complexity due to multiple encryption schemes
|
|
- allows reusing ssh key workflows
|
|
- some additional local setup for contributors
|
|
|
|
### Vaultwarden scalability
|
|
|
|
- allows reusing password handling workflows (typically better automation than for ssh keys)
|
|
- more up-front work for initial deployment
|
|
- disaster recovery needs special care, doesn't implicitly distribute copies to contributors
|
|
- less interaction for managing contributor access
|
|
- separate source of truth (workflows, audit log, etc.) as opposed to everything in the Git repo
|
|
- adds an extra security boundary; encrypted secrets are not world-readable
|
|
|
|
### ssh/scp scalability
|
|
|
|
- requires taking care of distributing keys
|
|
- per-user key management typically not automated, requires taking care of that separately
|
|
|
|
## Additional notes
|
|
|
|
- Managing the interface between public confiuration and secrets is a concern of the code
|
|
- For a scalable setup you want something like modules that take secrets as settings
|
|
- It is possible to split the git-stored secret schemes into private repositories
|
|
- Then you have to handle synchronisation, e.g. by importing the public part from the secret part
|
|
- This would incur extra overhead for managing access, but that would be the same workflow as managing access to the rest of the Git server
|
|
- With secrets stored in Git there's a potential for running into merge conflicts, which can be avoided but requires extra care
|
|
- Probably you want a monorepo for the entire organisation
|
|
- Separating public and private parts through git subtrees is possible but requires even more care and automation/tooling when managing outside contributions
|
|
- The upfront effort may be similar (but different in nature) to deploying and maintaining a Vaultwarden server
|
|
- There's an experience and skill issue involved in maintaining a sophisticated Git repo or a live server, and what is more appropriate will depend on who will be responsible for the setup long-term |