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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Document DIDKit HTTP security considerations #233

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 11, 2021
Merged

Document DIDKit HTTP security considerations #233

merged 4 commits into from
Nov 11, 2021

Conversation

clehner
Copy link
Contributor

@clehner clehner commented Oct 25, 2021

This is to note that DIDKit HTTP assumes a trusted environment, and that certain security considerations should be addressed in deployments.

sbihel
sbihel approved these changes Oct 25, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@sbihel sbihel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In my opinion those considerations show that DIDKit's HTTP server is production ready (in a modern sense, in that it's not monolithic) and that feels a bit at odd with previous conversations we've had.

@clehner
Describe DIDKit HTTP production use
412e123 
Co-authored-by: Bumblefudge <juan.caballero@spruceid.com>
@clehner clehner requested a review from sbihel October 25, 2021 20:20
@clehner
Copy link
Contributor Author

clehner commented Oct 25, 2021

Updated to reflect that request payload sizes are now limited with a constant (#229), and to mention the issue about making that configurable (#236).

@wyc wyc merged commit b21a12a into main Nov 11, 2021
@wyc wyc deleted the fix/document-didkit-http-security branch November 11, 2021 20:43
@clehner clehner mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2022
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@bumblefudge bumblefudge bumblefudge left review comments

@wyc wyc wyc approved these changes

@sbihel sbihel Awaiting requested review from sbihel

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@clehner @wyc @sbihel @bumblefudge