local dev keys expired #81
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThe changes involve updates to several key configuration files, primarily focusing on the modification of private keys and cryptographic hashes. These alterations include the replacement of existing private keys in Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Application
participant Network
User->>Application: Request secure connection
Application->>Network: Use updated keys for authentication
Network->>Application: Validate keys
Application->>User: Secure connection established
Poem
Tip OpenAI O1 model for chat
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
local_dev/config/h2_mk.key (1)
1-1: LGTM!The update to the cryptographic key appears to be a routine change to replace an expired key used for local development, as mentioned in the PR objectives. The new key value itself looks good.
Nit: Consider adding a newline at the end of the file for consistency with other files and POSIX standards, although this doesn't affect functionality.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (6)
local_dev/config/pub/h1.pemis excluded by!**/*.pemlocal_dev/config/pub/h1_mk.pubis excluded by!**/*.publocal_dev/config/pub/h2.pemis excluded by!**/*.pemlocal_dev/config/pub/h2_mk.pubis excluded by!**/*.publocal_dev/config/pub/h3.pemis excluded by!**/*.pemlocal_dev/config/pub/h3_mk.pubis excluded by!**/*.pub
Files selected for processing (7)
- local_dev/config/h1.key (1 hunks)
- local_dev/config/h1_mk.key (1 hunks)
- local_dev/config/h2.key (1 hunks)
- local_dev/config/h2_mk.key (1 hunks)
- local_dev/config/h3.key (1 hunks)
- local_dev/config/h3_mk.key (1 hunks)
- local_dev/config/network.toml (1 hunks)
Additional context used
Gitleaks
local_dev/config/network.toml
19-19: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
39-39: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
59-59: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
Additional comments not posted (8)
local_dev/config/h1_mk.key (1)
1-1: LGTM!The update to the hash value in
h1_mk.keyappears to be a routine update of an expired local development key, as indicated in the PR objectives. Since this key is not used in production, the change is safe to merge.local_dev/config/h3_mk.key (1)
1-1: LGTM!The key hash update looks good. The new hash appears to be a valid SHA-256 hash and matches the expected format.
Since this key is used only for local development purposes, updating it due to the previous key's expiry is a valid change and does not introduce any security risks.
local_dev/config/h1.key (1)
2-4: Looks good, but keep the key secure!The private key change looks fine for a local development setup. The key format is valid and the reason for the change (expired key) makes sense.
Just remember:
- Keep this key secure and don't share it publicly as it can compromise the security of your local environment.
- Ensure you follow secure coding practices when using this key to sign or encrypt data.
- Rotate the keys periodically to maintain security.
local_dev/config/h2.key (1)
2-4: The private key change looks good.The updated private key in
local_dev/config/h2.keyfollows the expected PEM format and appears to be a valid ECDSA private key based on the key size. The key change aligns with the PR objectives to replace the expired local development keys.local_dev/config/h3.key (1)
2-4: LGTM!The replacement of the expired private key with a new one for local development purposes is valid and necessary.
The key is in the correct PEM format and does not pose any security risks since it is only used for local development.
local_dev/config/network.toml (3)
4-12: LGTM!The updated certificate and public key for peer 1 look good. The certificate has appropriate validity period and common name for a development environment, and the public key matches the expected format for HPKE.
Regarding the static analysis hint flagging the public key as a potential API key - this is a false positive. The public key is used for peer authentication in the HPKE scheme, not as an API key. It's safe to ignore this hint.
Also applies to: 19-19
24-32: LGTM!The updated certificate and public key for peer 2 look good. The certificate has appropriate validity period and common name for a development environment, and the public key matches the expected format for HPKE.
Regarding the static analysis hint flagging the public key as a potential API key - this is a false positive. The public key is used for peer authentication in the HPKE scheme, not as an API key. It's safe to ignore this hint.
Also applies to: 39-39
44-52: LGTM!The updated certificate and public key for peer 3 look good. The certificate has appropriate validity period and common name for a development environment, and the public key matches the expected format for HPKE.
Regarding the static analysis hint flagging the public key as a potential API key - this is a false positive. The public key is used for peer authentication in the HPKE scheme, not as an API key. It's safe to ignore this hint.
Also applies to: 59-59
|
Do we need to have this keys in CI? |
|
there is a way to generate them with 2+ year expiration, maybe for local dev it is enough |
it's not for CI, it's just for local dev. you could have the user generate them on their own, but then you also have to have them build the network.toml file too. local dev doesn't need to be secure so this makes setup easier.
|
these are only used for local dev, and the old ones expired
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores