Skip to content

13.3.4 / v5.0.be-14.8.3 - Clarify "key secrets" #2971

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

Open
randomstuff opened this issue Apr 15, 2025 · 8 comments
Open

13.3.4 / v5.0.be-14.8.3 - Clarify "key secrets" #2971

randomstuff opened this issue Apr 15, 2025 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels
1) Discussion ongoing Issue is opened and assigned but no clear proposal yet 4) proposal for review Issue contains clear proposal for add/change something V13 (prev V14) _5.0 - rc1

Comments

@randomstuff
Copy link
Contributor

We have:

13.3.4 Verify that key secrets have defined expiration dates and are rotated on a schedule based on the organization's threat model and business requirements.

"Key secrets" means "actually very important secrets"? It looks quite like we might be talking about "secret keys" but actually we want to cover private keys, passwords and tokens as well. Should we reword "key secrets"?

@elarlang
Copy link
Collaborator

Additionally, topics from #2952: Should the second part have matching documentation requirement?

@elarlang elarlang changed the title Clairfy "key secrets" 13.3.4 / v5.0.be-14.8.3 - Clairfy "key secrets" Apr 15, 2025
@elarlang elarlang added V13 (prev V14) 1) Discussion ongoing Issue is opened and assigned but no clear proposal yet _5.0 - rc1 labels Apr 15, 2025
@elarlang
Copy link
Collaborator

As I understand, the goal to achieve is:

  • There must be documented what those really important credentials and keys are that need rotation, and for each, the schedule
  • Implementation requirement to verify that everything is according to the documented decision

This schedule part feels like a process, and I'm not fully sure how well it fits into the scope. We can say that if it is described in the documentation and then we can check when it was last changed time?

@jmanico
Copy link
Member

jmanico commented Apr 15, 2025

Regarding the OP I would suggest just dropping "key" and leave it as:

13.3.4 Verify that secrets have defined expiration dates and are rotated on a schedule based on the organization's threat model and business requirements.

@tghosth
Copy link
Collaborator

tghosth commented Apr 17, 2025

For future reference, this was added here:

89b14cc

@tghosth
Copy link
Collaborator

tghosth commented Apr 17, 2025

How about the following (new 13.1.4 and modified 13.3.4):

Proposal

V13.1 Configuration Documentation

This section provides documentation requirements around how the application communicates with internal and external services and the techniques to employ to prevent loss of availability due to these services not being accessible. It also considers documentation around secrets.

# Description Level #v5.0.be
13.1.4 Verify that the application's documentation defines the secrets which are critical for the security of the application and a schedule for rotating them, based on the organization's threat model and business requirement. 3

V13.3 Secret Management

Secret management is a configuration task that is essential to ensure the protection of data being used in the application. Specific requirements on cryptography can be found in the "Cryptography" chapter but this section focuses on the management and handling aspects of secrets.

# Description Level #v5.0.be
13.3.4 Verify that secrets are configured to expire and be rotated based on the application's documentation. 3 v5.0.be-14.8.3

@elarlang elarlang added the 4) proposal for review Issue contains clear proposal for add/change something label Apr 17, 2025
@danielcuthbert
Copy link
Collaborator

Regarding the OP I would suggest just dropping "key" and leave it as:

13.3.4 Verify that secrets have defined expiration dates and are rotated on a schedule based on the organization's threat model and business requirements.

Actually this makes a lot more sense, i like this approach

@elarlang
Copy link
Collaborator

Should I PR it in based on #2971 (comment)? (it requires some changes into mapping files)

@randomstuff randomstuff changed the title 13.3.4 / v5.0.be-14.8.3 - Clairfy "key secrets" 13.3.4 / v5.0.be-14.8.3 - Clarify "key secrets" Apr 18, 2025
@jmanico
Copy link
Member

jmanico commented Apr 18, 2025

I think there is enough consensus here to PR it, @elarlang.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1) Discussion ongoing Issue is opened and assigned but no clear proposal yet 4) proposal for review Issue contains clear proposal for add/change something V13 (prev V14) _5.0 - rc1
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants