You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently providers use a single key pair for signing and encryption of data. When using Kiebitz within a larger organization it might be required to delegate access to many stakeholders, which should ideally have their own key pairs. To achieve this we could add multi-key support for providers, or we could add a user role to the system that has role-based access to the provider data. User keys would be generated in the frontend and signed by the provider key.
This would make key rotation / change for the provider keys less urgent as the keys would only be used for initial setup and user key generation and would not leave the device. Still, when revoking a given user key appointments signed with the key would need to be re-signed.
This issue is currently for discussion only, please do not implement this yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
adewes
changed the title
Add multi-key support for providers (?)
Add multi-key support or user keys for providers (?)
Dec 1, 2021
Currently providers use a single key pair for signing and encryption of data. When using Kiebitz within a larger organization it might be required to delegate access to many stakeholders, which should ideally have their own key pairs. To achieve this we could add multi-key support for providers, or we could add a
user
role to the system that has role-based access to the provider data. User keys would be generated in the frontend and signed by the provider key.This would make key rotation / change for the provider keys less urgent as the keys would only be used for initial setup and user key generation and would not leave the device. Still, when revoking a given user key appointments signed with the key would need to be re-signed.
This issue is currently for discussion only, please do not implement this yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: