Skip to content
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

Prefer Managed Identity over Shared Access Keys for Storage Account #168

Closed
Pauwelz opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

Prefer Managed Identity over Shared Access Keys for Storage Account #168

Pauwelz opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested

Comments

@Pauwelz
Copy link
Contributor

Pauwelz commented Feb 16, 2023

Currently we're using Shared Access Keys for access to the Storage Account from all the applications needing it. All of these applications are running in Azure, so we should investigate the work to switching this over to Managed Identities. (This is coming from a customer that also requires Managed Identity instead of Shared Access Keys that can be "leaked")

@Pauwelz Pauwelz added enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested labels Feb 16, 2023
@pim-simons
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe we can look at using Managed Identities on a broader scope than just Storage Account?
Should be possible to use this to call the API's also right?

@Pauwelz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Pauwelz commented Feb 16, 2023

Perhaps, certainly if we use a User-Assigned one, we should be able to get all our Logic Apps to use the same one.
This was more from the customer perspective where they want it to be MI towards the Storage Account at first.

@pim-simons
Copy link
Contributor

Indeed, add a user assigned managed identity to the Invictus for Azure deployment and use that to connect to all Invictus related components.

@stijnmoreels
Copy link
Collaborator

Thx, @Pauwelz , for all these security suggestions! There is indeed a great opportunity to improve this.
Thank you! 🏅

@LaurentAerens LaurentAerens self-assigned this Mar 22, 2023
@GoutsmitSam
Copy link
Contributor

@LaurentAerens @Pauwelz I suppose this issue can now also be closed?

@GoutsmitSam
Copy link
Contributor

Issue can be closed as MSI changes have been added due to Ecofit requriements

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants