feat: allow users to specify additional users for kms key policy #175
Conversation
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
credibleforce
requested review from
aneesh-mysore,
jeffreynglw and
marktabry
and removed request for
a team
|
Awesome, exactly what I needed. I hope this gets approved/merged in soon. Thanks! |
jeffreynglw
requested review from
PengyuanZhao
and removed request for
aneesh-mysore
Contributor
|
@credibleforce could you run |
Contributor
Author
|
@PengyuanZhao thanks, missed that one :) docs updated now |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
In environments where customers have managed service providers with shared access to administer kms keys there is a need to allow the lacework KMS to be provisioned (optionally) with an extended list of trusted identities.
How did you test this change?
Deployed to test environment.
Issue
Raised via customer NFR:
https://mantis.fortinet.com/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1117782