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

[FEATURE]-ConfigReader class must not overwrite secrets objects in local configs #970

Open
TrevorPayne opened this issue Jul 18, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request planning

Comments

@TrevorPayne
Copy link
Contributor

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When secrets are utilized in a device config for a reconfigurable device, saving the config file to a local config overwrites the secrets object with the data normally stored as a secret. This is a security concern.

Describe the solution you'd like
Update the CustomSetConfig method in the ReconfigurableDevice class to compare the data within the corresponding DeviceConfig object stored in the ConfigReader class, looping through its properties to find any object containing a SecretsPropertiesConfig object and utilizing that object rather than the locally stored, retrieved Secret data to write to the local config. The DeviceFactory.CheckForSecrets method is a good prototype for determining how to loop through the config to find these objects.

Describe alternatives you've considered
This has to be handled in at least a similar method to this.

@TrevorPayne TrevorPayne added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 18, 2022
@TrevorPayne
Copy link
Contributor Author

As an alternative, we could write data back as Base64 encoded data - it's a start for (minor) obfusctation, but we would still ahve to know that we're writing back to something that was already tagged as a secret - so if we have that data, we should be able to save the original secret-linking object and this becomes a non-issue.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants