You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is as much a request for ideas as it is a request to change the existing auth/tls module.
Our existing PKI system uses OU like a 'group' (eg: engineer, api, web, etc) and CN like a 'user' (CN=servername.tld, CN=[email protected], CN=myapp). It would be ideal to be able to use the auth/tls backend to obtain a token using these certs with specific policies attached based on the OU and/or CN.
Configuring one of these roles might look something like the following modified example from the existing docs:
I realize this may be too much of a change for the existing auth/tls module. If there were a plugin system I would just fork the existing module and change it to implement the OU / CN logic.
Are there other way this could be implemented without having to fork and maintain our own Vault code base? Possibly via a wrapping proxy, although I'd like to avoid having to keep state in the proxy which might be difficult.
thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is as much a request for ideas as it is a request to change the existing auth/tls module.
Our existing PKI system uses
OU
like a 'group' (eg: engineer, api, web, etc) andCN
like a 'user' (CN=servername.tld, CN=[email protected], CN=myapp). It would be ideal to be able to use the auth/tls backend to obtain a token using these certs with specific policies attached based on the OU and/or CN.Configuring one of these roles might look something like the following modified example from the existing docs:
or
I realize this may be too much of a change for the existing auth/tls module. If there were a plugin system I would just fork the existing module and change it to implement the OU / CN logic.
Are there other way this could be implemented without having to fork and maintain our own Vault code base? Possibly via a wrapping proxy, although I'd like to avoid having to keep state in the proxy which might be difficult.
thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: