-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
decide on insecureSkipVerify setting when run against secured etcd #22858
Comments
cc @lavalamp |
We're doing client cert to etcd, right? So I think it's OK, since etcd will be doing the cert checking, not apiserver. But maybe we can get confirmation from @xiang90. |
This is about the client verifying the server's serving cert (2-way TLS), and whether the client has to have a way to disable that check. |
/cc @hongchaodeng |
@liggitt you mean whether the client has a way to enable that check? |
no... |
Oh, you're right. That changed since I saw it. |
I think admins can add their ca to the system list if they want to use self-signed certs for etcd. Will raise priority again if I see a bunch of admins here complaining. :) |
Issues go stale after 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
We just restore ability to run against secured etcd here #21535, but InsecureSkipTLSVerify is still questionable in secured etcd. We need to decide whether we should add this. @liggitt @timothysc @bgrant0607 @xiang90 ptal.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: