Skip to content

Secure MISP API key handling - #14904

Open
idoshabi07 wants to merge 1 commit into
Azure:masterfrom
idoshabi07:ai-scan/misp-secret
Open

Secure MISP API key handling#14904
idoshabi07 wants to merge 1 commit into
Azure:masterfrom
idoshabi07:ai-scan/misp-secret

Conversation

@idoshabi07

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Uses secure-string parameters, removes the plaintext MISP key variable, references the secure parameter directly, and masks authenticated action data.

AI scan items

Validation

ARM template JSON parsing passed.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: ccff4d4a-3094-4de9-a5c0-d00c63d96a37
@idoshabi07
idoshabi07 requested review from a team as code owners August 13, 2026 12:11
@v-maheshbh v-maheshbh (v-maheshbh) added the Playbook Playbook specialty review needed label Aug 13, 2026

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Note

Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.

Updates the Sentinel-to-MISP Logic App ARM template to handle the MISP API key as a secure value and reduce secret exposure in run history.

Changes:

  • Changes the MISP-Key parameter to a secure string type.
  • Removes the plaintext MISPKey workflow variable and references the secure parameter directly in HTTP Authorization headers.
  • Adds runtimeConfiguration.secureData to mask action inputs/outputs for authenticated HTTP actions.
Suppressed comments (1)

Playbooks/2S-Sentinel2MISP/MISP-Orchestrator/azuredeploy.json:1

  • Using a secure value as a workflow definition parameter defaultValue can cause the secret to be persisted in the workflow definition payload at deploy time (and potentially retrievable by users with workflow read access). Prefer defining the workflow parameter as SecureString without a defaultValue, and pass the secret via the workflow resource’s parameters/value mechanism (or a Key Vault reference where supported) so the secret is stored/handled as a secret rather than embedded into the definition.
{

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Comment on lines +355 to 361
"secureData": {
"properties": [
"inputs",
"outputs"
]
}
}
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Playbook Playbook specialty review needed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants