KEP 5933: Add x-kubernetes-sensitive-data marker for CRD fields#5937
KEP 5933: Add x-kubernetes-sensitive-data marker for CRD fields#5937trofimovdals wants to merge 1 commit intokubernetes:masterfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: dmitry.trofimov <[email protected]>
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
Hi @trofimovdals. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: trofimovdals The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
kind/kep
k8s-ci-robot
added
sig/api-machinery
| - "@sprait" | ||
| owning-sig: sig-api-machinery | ||
| participating-sigs: | ||
| - sig-auth |
| - PATCH request audit masking is technically challenging, requiring JSON path analysis of patch bodies. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should note that people could use a Secret instead (even if we rule out that alternative); it is a broadly viable option here.
| - Returned **in full** to every authenticated caller that can `get` the resource, even if the caller only needs non-sensitive fields. | ||
| - Logged **in cleartext** in audit log entries, creating a compliance risk. | ||
|
|
||
| There is no first-class Kubernetes primitive that lets a CRD author say "this field is sensitive — treat it accordingly". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's true, and I note the non goals, but having a built in API with these properties would also be really convenient.
| - PATCH masking in audit is more complex than GET/PUT masking because the patch body must be parsed and individual values replaced by path. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Risks and Mitigations | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I get an object and write it back with a PUT, do I lose data? How's that risk managed?
3 participants
Introduces
x-kubernetes-sensitive-datavendor extension that enables field stripping on get/list/watch for unauthorized callers and unconditional masking of sensitive values in audit log entries.