Separate ateom certificates vs direct actor certificates - #1626
Open
Taahir Ahmed (ahmedtd) wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Separate ateom certificates vs direct actor certificates#1626Taahir Ahmed (ahmedtd) wants to merge 2 commits into
Taahir Ahmed (ahmedtd) wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
We need to draw a strong distinction between credentials that will be
wielded directly by actor logic, and credentials used by system
components on behalf of an actor. This will help us avoid attacks where
an actor pretends to be a system component.
Ateom certificates are requested by ateom/atelet and used for the
atunnel connection to the egress gateway. They have a SPIFFE URI like
`spiffe://${trustdomain}/ateom/actor/${atespace}/${actor}`.
Actor certificates are requested by the egress gateway and used for
opening outbound requests on behalf of the actor. They have a SPIFFE
URI like `spiffe://${trustdomain}/ateom/actor/${atespace}/${actor}`.
Note, this use case is not actually implemented yet.
Taahir Ahmed (ahmedtd)
requested review from
Eitan Yarmush (EItanya),
Lior Lieberman (LiorLieberman) and
Shruti Nair (SHRUTI6991)
September 12, 2026 03:31
Collaborator
|
whats your view on adding another part "/x/" vs prefixing the existing part already - like Wouldn't it ease regexes / validation in different component that uses that peer identity? |
| type credentialBroker struct { | ||
| ateletpb.UnimplementedCredentialBrokerServer | ||
| controlClient ateapipb.ControlClient | ||
| type ateomSupportServer struct { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
whats the rationale behind "ateomSupportServer" name? whats ateomSupport?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We need to draw a strong distinction between credentials that will be wielded directly by actor logic, and credentials used by system components on behalf of an actor. This will help us avoid attacks where an actor pretends to be a system component.
Ateom certificates are requested by ateom/atelet and used for the atunnel connection to the egress gateway. They have a SPIFFE URI like
spiffe://${trustdomain}/ateom/actor/${atespace}/${actor}.Actor certificates are requested by the egress gateway and used for opening outbound requests on behalf of the actor. They have a SPIFFE URI like
spiffe://${trustdomain}/actor/${atespace}/${actor}. Note, this use case is not actually implemented yet.Stacked over #1501