forked from fediversity/meta
		
	Add meeting-notes/2024-12-10-decision-making-meeting-dealing-with-secrets.md
Add notes & decision on how to deal with secrets
This commit is contained in:
		
							parent
							
								
									6d4350dae2
								
							
						
					
					
						commit
						8f5f0b141d
					
				
					 1 changed files with 74 additions and 0 deletions
				
			
		|  | @ -0,0 +1,74 @@ | ||||||
|  | # 'Secret(s)' meeting  | ||||||
|  | **Date:** 2024-12-10   | ||||||
|  | **Present:** Ronny, Koen, Eric, Richard, Gheorghe, Kevin, Valentin, Robert, Bjorn, Nicolas    | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | ## Goal of this meeting | ||||||
|  | Decide on how we want to deal with secrets, e.g. passwords for systems. | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | ## Expected end result | ||||||
|  | At the end of this meeting we have a decision on how to continue with secrets | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | ## Preparations | ||||||
|  | Please read this:     | ||||||
|  | https://git.fediversity.eu/Fediversity/meta/src/branch/main/secrets-management.md | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | ## Decision made:   | ||||||
|  | **For now we wil continue with Agenix & keep our options open. We will also ask the security professionals for a sanity check. NLNet offers support from Radically Open Security for this. Ask them for their input & look into the security options (MFA etc). Please include advice on this for NixOps as well.** | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | ## Actions    | ||||||
|  | @ronny will contact Radically Open Security (part of the NLNet offerings). This might take a few weeks as Ronny knows that ROS has a bit of backlog.   | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | ### Team members perspectives, thoughts & observations      | ||||||
|  | * Koen  | ||||||
|  | 	* Passbolt might be an option as well (https://www.passbolt.com).  | ||||||
|  | 	* Vaultwarden is an api compatible reimplementation of Bitwarden.    | ||||||
|  | 	* If fully automated: don't care, but if broken we need to be able to easily fix this | ||||||
|  | 	* Vaultwarden is now used at Procolix. Secrets are now handled manually.   | ||||||
|  | 	* Vaultwarden maintenance is a PITA. Without docker it failed, using it now using Docker. Vaultwarden in Nix works, but still a blackbox. Need to get more info on the internals in case something breaks.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: doubting: upfront time investment is not a problem. Is API usage by the Nix developers an obstabcle? Barrier as low as possible. | ||||||
|  | 	* Choose something now, no multiple options.    | ||||||
|  | * Nicolas | ||||||
|  | 	* agenix prefered when talking about Git type of solutions | ||||||
|  | 	* Big question: git vs application | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: agenix one person setup, bootstrapping would be easier for me. Might need a bit more time to look into applications API's.  | ||||||
|  | * Eric | ||||||
|  | 	* Secrets for systems & config have diff req vs those for users. One size fits all does not apply here.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: the solution with less moving parts. | ||||||
|  | 	* Offers insights into experiences he has | ||||||
|  | * Valentin | ||||||
|  | 	* Vaultwarden offers all the features we need.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Passbolt needs to be researched to check for feature parity.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Vaultwarden is already used by Procolix.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Secrets application connects to NixOps via a resource provider  | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: application route.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Domain experts have already thought about this.  | ||||||
|  | * Gheorghe: | ||||||
|  | 	* Backup & restore should be taken into consideration as well. Test restoring with the solution you choose.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: keep eye on what to deliver. Nicholas has to deliver, so +1 with Nicolas.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Other solution features need to be taken into account: e.g. MFA etc.  | ||||||
|  | * Bjorn | ||||||
|  | 	* Using an application has the added benefit: users may use this as part of the services offered by Fediversity. | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: what's the exit plan? Do we have an exit plan? Should check the docs for import/export for both solutions. An application would be my preference.  | ||||||
|  | * Ronny  | ||||||
|  | 	* Users usecase  | ||||||
|  | 	* Sysadmin usecase  | ||||||
|  | 	* Systems usecase  | ||||||
|  | 	* TIL Agenix,  interesting.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Diff between users facing & systems  | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: for sysadmins/users: app like Vaultwarden & for inter systems git | ||||||
|  | * Robert | ||||||
|  | 	* In NixOps there's state incl secrets  | ||||||
|  | 	* secrets could also be transferred to the secrets management tool | ||||||
|  | 	* NixOps can call an app to generate secrets. Resource providers can stored this. | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: git based, because Robert is more adapted to git.  | ||||||
|  | * Kevin | ||||||
|  | 	* Not so aquintainted with this topic | ||||||
|  | 	* If stuff fails it would be  worthwhile to be able to access it.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: Vaultwarden. Api looks pretty good.  | ||||||
|  | * Richard:  | ||||||
|  | 	* Worked with Vaultwarden & Bitwarden. Not nec pref.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Only experienced the UI side not the CLI side.  | ||||||
|  | 	* Pref solution: open to both solutions  | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
|  | 
 | ||||||
		Loading…
	
	Add table
		
		Reference in a new issue
	
	 bjornw
						bjornw