[openstack-dev] [tripleo] [barbican] [tc] key store in base services (was: Encrypted swift volumes by default in the undercloud)
fungi at yuggoth.org
Wed May 16 17:42:09 UTC 2018
On 2018-05-16 13:16:09 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On 05/15/2018 09:19 PM, Juan Antonio Osorio wrote:
> > As part of the work from the Security Squad, we added the
> > ability for the containerized undercloud to encrypt the
> > overcloud plans. This is done by enabling Swift's encrypted
> > volumes, which require barbican. Right now it's turned off, but
> > I would like to enable it by default . What do you folks
> > think?
> I like the idea, but I'm a bit skeptical about adding a new
> service to already quite bloated undercloud. Why is barbican a
> hard requirement here?
This exchange has given me pause to reflect on discussions we were
having one year ago (leading up to and at the Forum in Boston).
As a community, we're likely to continue to make imbalanced
trade-offs against relevant security features if we don't move
forward and declare that some sort of standardized key storage
solution is a fundamental component on which OpenStack services can
rely. Being able to just assume that you can encrypt volumes in
Swift, even as a means to further secure a TripleO undercloud, would
be a step in the right direction for security-minded deployments.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to find any follow-up summary on the
mailing list from the aforementioned session, but recollection from
those who were present (I had a schedule conflict at that time) was
that a Castellan-compatible key store would at least be a candidate
for inclusion in our base services list:
So a year has passed... where are we with this? Is it still
something we want to do (I think so, do others)? What are the next
steps so this doesn't come up again and again?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev