We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Hi, I was reviewing the item discussed in the title. It is entitled "Regularly review and reconcile user access" and essentially covers only group membership and role assignment, which is good when the RBAC model is chosen. I wonder if we should be more explicit by referring to Access Policies (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/key-vault/general/assign-access-policy-portal). In fact, they should be revised as well. Do we have a clear guidance on how to revise them, as we have for Azure AD Roles assignment? FYI: the specific file where I have found the issue is https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/SecurityBenchmarks/blob/master/Azure%20Offer%20Security%20Baselines/1.1/key-vault-security-baseline-v1.1.xlsx. Thanks, Simone Curzi
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Hi, I was reviewing the item discussed in the title. It is entitled "Regularly review and reconcile user access" and essentially covers only group membership and role assignment, which is good when the RBAC model is chosen. I wonder if we should be more explicit by referring to Access Policies (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/key-vault/general/assign-access-policy-portal). In fact, they should be revised as well. Do we have a clear guidance on how to revise them, as we have for Azure AD Roles assignment?
FYI: the specific file where I have found the issue is https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/SecurityBenchmarks/blob/master/Azure%20Offer%20Security%20Baselines/1.1/key-vault-security-baseline-v1.1.xlsx.
Thanks,
Simone Curzi
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: