feat: support more sensitive fields for encryption#11095
Merged
shreemaan-abhishek merged 15 commits intoMar 29, 2024
Conversation
shreemaan-abhishek
marked this pull request as ready for review
March 27, 2024 08:02
starsz
reviewed
Mar 27, 2024
starsz
reviewed
Mar 28, 2024
| end | ||
|
|
||
| local encrypted = core.table.try_read_attr(local_conf, "apisix", "data_encryption", | ||
| "enable_encrypt_fields") and (core.config.type == "etcd") |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to add this ?
I think the check_schema is run before the fields encrypted.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if data encryption is enabled then the secret length will be more than 32. So we should not check the length if data encryption is on.
I think the check_schema is run before the fields encrypted.
yes. This is why we cannot use the code in plugin.lua, so I just copied the logic 😅
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if data encryption is enabled then the secret length will be more than 32.
Why the secret length will be more than 32. Is the secret is encrypted?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, exactly.
moonming
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2024
starsz
approved these changes
Mar 29, 2024
shreemaan-abhishek
pushed a commit
to shreemaan-abhishek/apisix
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2026
apache#9247 apache#10353 apache#10607 apache#11095 --------- Signed-off-by: Nic <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nic <[email protected]>
membphis
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 12, 2026
The `ci/check_changelog_prs.ts` script captures only the first `#NNNN` match per line. Four entries from the previous commit listed a related PR (or an external-repo reference like `api7/apisix-nginx-module#108`) before the entry's own PR number, so the check reported the entries' own PRs as missing from CHANGELOG.md. Reorder so that the entry's canonical PR appears first on the line: - 3.15.0 #12678 (apisix-runtime init_worker) - 3.13.0 #12244 (server-info deprecation) - 3.10.0 #11095 (encrypted plugin fields expansion) - 3.8.1 #11174 (forward-auth POST headers)
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
3 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.
Description
Some sensitive plugin fields aren't under the protection of
encrypt_fieldsfeature. It has been addressed in this PR.Checklist