-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 200
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
Request for clarification: Access to historical secrets after revocation #653
Comments
Hi! @MathiasPius this is a great question! Indeed, we don't have any might to revoke things that was once granted. It is surely must be in the "killperson" command docs. |
Thanks for the quick reply! The documentation of git-secret-killperson says the following:
... Which is technically true for the files as they exist at the HEAD of the repository, but I believe it could benefit from a clarification regarding historical secrets, although I'll admit I'm not entirely sure of a formulation. Perhaps an addendum like this?
|
👍 |
…and is not readable by a user after having been removed from the repository's keyring (#654) * Closes #653 Add security disclaimer for git-secret-killperson specifying what is and is not readable by a user after having been removed from the repository's keyring * Document addition of disclaimer in changelog
I wasn't able to find an answer to this question on the website or the documentation, and was not able to decipher definitively one way or the other from the source code, so I pose my question here:
What, if any, measures does git-secret take to prevent post-revocation access to historical secrets in the git history?
Assuming a user has access to a public repository, has been included in the keyring and that the secrets in the repository have been re-hidden using this keyring. If the user is then "killed", what prevents them from checking out an older reference and accessing the secrets as they were at that point?
I agree that the example may be a little contrived, given the decentralized nature of git which means that:
But I did find it somewhat concerning that this was not addressed at all, as far as I could tell. git-crypt for example has a very clear disclaimer for this type of scenario, and the lack of it might provide a false sense of security for users of git-secret, which might skew decision-making when choosing an in-tree encryption method.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: