Document the security model of the secrets path - #42
Merged
Conversation
czpython
force-pushed
the
dru-405-security-model
branch
2 times, most recently
from
September 6, 2026 17:20
f9ed5ef to
5faff7c
Compare
czpython
force-pushed
the
dru-462-acceptance-kit
branch
from
September 7, 2026 06:09
5f71a52 to
1427d9e
Compare
czpython
force-pushed
the
dru-405-security-model
branch
from
September 7, 2026 07:07
5faff7c to
682e2f8
Compare
The security doc says which field to use, what the proxy protects, and what env is and is not, in short sentences with one fact each. The facts were spread over one long section. They now sit under one heading each, so a reader can find the answer without asking.
czpython
force-pushed
the
dru-405-security-model
branch
from
September 7, 2026 07:23
682e2f8 to
3f268e0
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes
docs/security.mdgets the secrets path under three headings, in short sentences with one fact each:envfor configuration,secretsfor a credential, with the encryption and the key rotation.envis and is not: plaintext by design, with the PAM rules. No secrets inenv, ever.The provider material paragraphs, the Tailscale auth key and IMDS, keep their facts under a heading of their own. Every other section of the document is unchanged.
Where this differs from the ticket
SECRETS_KEY. The key lives in the proxy's volume. The document says the volume, and says to guard it likeSECRETS_KEY.hosts.env. The field isenvonPOST /hosts, and the document names it that way.architecture.mdanddeploy.mdalready carry, the403answer,flow_detail, and the SSH remote rewrite, are not repeated here.Names
None new.
Gates
uv run ruff check,uv run ruff format --check,uv run pyright, anduv run pytestare green.Acceptance
A documentation change. The facts were checked against the code and the deploy doc while writing.
Review
The adversarial review reported six overstatements in the prose, applied in an earlier revision. Three of them are still in the text after the cut:
The review also noted that the exchange answers for a host past its lease until the row is deleted. That is how the code works today. A check of
expires_atin the exchange would be a product change for its own ticket.