It works great for static credentials. As a product I think about adding couple more things that might be helpful here (Btw I am not the client for this, I just happen to know them as practical problems)
1. Support for OAuth Client credentials - Gateway does the OAuth dance to get the access token, this is quite practical and even useful in case of regular services running across clusters and sharing the same clientId-secretId
2. Support for request retries on certain failures and short circuiting in other cases
1. we support OAuth apps today, and we're growing the catalog based on demand. we support rotating and refreshing tokens for those.
2. I'd like to understand your case better. sitting in the request path means we could own retry mechanisms, but I'm curious what made you think of it, what kind of use cases did you have in mind?
nice launch. i have started to use a secrets manager (infisical) recently for my different projects and it's been really helpful. are your customers solo hackers, small startups or large enterprises that are looking for this kind of solution? i like to see competition in the space
Looks great. The "credential broker" pattern (inject placeholders, replace in proxy) is something we just added to https://varlock.dev (totally free and open source).
Rather than using a dashboard, ours is configured within a .env.schema file, and rather than our own vault, we can pull secrets using our plugins (16 and counting) including Infisical, 1Password, Bitwarden, AWS, GCP, Azure, more. Also very useful for coding tasks in general, as we have integrations for most frameworks, and add built in validation, type safety, leak detection, etc.
Will definitely be keeping an eye on OneCLI to compare notes.
oauth, saml, oidc accomplish the same thing in a way more mature way, so if you’re already using SSO just do that instead of adding another point of failure..
Holy mother of whatever this is, everyone got the same idea again and there’s a bunch of implementations people are desperate to promote in the comments.
You’re just trading one key for another, whatever abstraction you chose to trust, at some point credentials will pass to your llm of the week.
It works great for static credentials. As a product I think about adding couple more things that might be helpful here (Btw I am not the client for this, I just happen to know them as practical problems)
1. Support for OAuth Client credentials - Gateway does the OAuth dance to get the access token, this is quite practical and even useful in case of regular services running across clusters and sharing the same clientId-secretId
2. Support for request retries on certain failures and short circuiting in other cases
thanks, both are useful.
1. we support OAuth apps today, and we're growing the catalog based on demand. we support rotating and refreshing tokens for those.
2. I'd like to understand your case better. sitting in the request path means we could own retry mechanisms, but I'm curious what made you think of it, what kind of use cases did you have in mind?
nice launch. i have started to use a secrets manager (infisical) recently for my different projects and it's been really helpful. are your customers solo hackers, small startups or large enterprises that are looking for this kind of solution? i like to see competition in the space
+1 on infisical. brilliant self-hosted offering, i love their CLI and it works well with CI pipelines
It is hilarious to see most comments are people peddling their own products more or less directly.
Oo this is interesting, blocking it on the network level is nice
Looks great. The "credential broker" pattern (inject placeholders, replace in proxy) is something we just added to https://varlock.dev (totally free and open source).
Rather than using a dashboard, ours is configured within a .env.schema file, and rather than our own vault, we can pull secrets using our plugins (16 and counting) including Infisical, 1Password, Bitwarden, AWS, GCP, Azure, more. Also very useful for coding tasks in general, as we have integrations for most frameworks, and add built in validation, type safety, leak detection, etc.
Will definitely be keeping an eye on OneCLI to compare notes.
Nice! I've built something like this, although specific to GitHub: https://github.com/denysvitali/gh-proxy
The idea being that if the fake token leaks from my sandbox - it would be completely useless for an attacker
+1 to Infisical.
We added Hashicorp Vault support here: https://github.com/Infisical/agent-vault/pull/256
oauth, saml, oidc accomplish the same thing in a way more mature way, so if you’re already using SSO just do that instead of adding another point of failure..
No they don't - you're still giving the agent a static token that can be exfiltrated and used elsewhere.
does the agent control the environment that onecli is running in? (yes)
Holy mother of whatever this is, everyone got the same idea again and there’s a bunch of implementations people are desperate to promote in the comments.
You’re just trading one key for another, whatever abstraction you chose to trust, at some point credentials will pass to your llm of the week.
> at some point credentials will pass to your llm of the week.
How?
I happen to know a solution where credentials wouldn't get to the agent. It's structurally impossible