Bug 1783970 - [DDF][Security] Rephrase "private key" usage, and explain how to handle expiring certificates [NEEDINFO]
Summary: [DDF][Security] Rephrase "private key" usage, and explain how to handle expir...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat OpenStack
Classification: Red Hat
Component: documentation
Version: 13.0 (Queens)
Hardware: All
OS: All
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Roger Heslop
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-12-16 11:08 UTC by Direct Docs Feedback
Modified: 2023-07-10 17:32 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-07-10 17:32:42 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
mlopes: needinfo? (alee)


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker OSP-8376 0 None None None 2022-11-24 08:39:00 UTC

Description Direct Docs Feedback 2019-12-16 11:08:22 UTC
This whole section talks in several places about using a "private key"  but in fact what is stored in Barbican is a certificate. I think the text of this section should be revisited and distinguish when it should talk about a certificate versus when it should talk about a private key.

Shouldn't we also address the question of certificate expiration and what must be done when the certificate used to sign an image expires?

Thanks.


Reported by: fherrman

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openstack_platform/13/html/manage_secrets_with_openstack_key_manager/validate_glance_images#annotations:1b1a2526-9c02-42bc-a8aa-4b15f886c88a

Comment 4 Lon Hohberger 2023-07-10 17:32:42 UTC
OSP13 support officially ended on 27 June 2023


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.