HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
cloudplatform.googleblog.com
HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#2I worry a lot about how these megacorps will treat "collaborators" vs "non collaborators" in the coming years. Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology.
Actually I'm more worried about how Facebook and Amazon treat non compliance, but Google sure seems to be getting shadier every day.
This combined with the W3C evolving into a corrupt entity just makes me want to get out of tech completely. Maybe if I could get some awesome dev job at the EFF?
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#3I worry a lot about how these megacorps will treat "collaborators" vs "non collaborators" in the coming years. Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology. Actually I'm more worried about how Facebook and Amazon treat non compliance, but Google sure seems to be getting shadier every day.…
[deleted]
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#4I worry a lot about how these megacorps will treat "collaborators" vs "non collaborators" in the coming years. Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology. Actually I'm more worried about how Facebook and Amazon treat non compliance, but Google sure seems to be getting shadier every day.…
From what I can tell, this is all opensource using their publicly documented API. That is, you could implement the same support for GCP in your own auth backend product, and you could implement the same support for your own cloud platform in Vault.
So… I don't really get what you're talking about in this context.
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#5I worry a lot about how these megacorps will treat "collaborators" vs "non collaborators" in the coming years. Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology. Actually I'm more worried about how Facebook and Amazon treat non compliance, but Google sure seems to be getting shadier every day.…
From what I can tell, this is all opensource using their publicly documented API. That is, you could implement the same support for GCP in your own auth backend product, and you could implement the same support for your own cloud platform in Vault. So… I don't really get what you're talking about in this context.
"We're working to enhance the integration between HashiCorp Vault and GCP, including Vault authentication backends for IAM and signed VM metadata."
There's not much detail in that. But, you could certainly read it in a way that using Hashicorp products might be lower friction than using other products on GCP.
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#6I worry a lot about how these megacorps will treat "collaborators" vs "non collaborators" in the coming years. Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology. Actually I'm more worried about how Facebook and Amazon treat non compliance, but Google sure seems to be getting shadier every day.…
> Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology.
I 'm not sure where you're coming from or going with this. Do you have an example to illustrate? What are you considering collaborators and non-collaborators?
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#7What do people here use to store and source-control secrets/almost-secrets and make them available to (pick n) terraform/ansible/salt/chef/...?
I've heard a lot of good things of Hashicorp Vault (https://www.vaultproject.io) but been hesitant to go with it.
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#8I worry a lot about how these megacorps will treat "collaborators" vs "non collaborators" in the coming years. Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology. Actually I'm more worried about how Facebook and Amazon treat non compliance, but Google sure seems to be getting shadier every day.…
The Hashicorp stack is pretty widely used in part for its open source cross-platform capabilities. This seems more along the lines of "Hey! You already use Terraform/Vault for provider X. Now GCP works even better with the tools you already use!"
You concern is probably worthwhile, but I think this is not an example of it.
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#9What do people here use to store and source-control secrets/almost-secrets and make them available to (pick n) terraform/ansible/salt/chef/...? I've heard a lot of good things of Hashicorp Vault ( https://www.vaultproject.io ) but been hesitant to go with it.
Hesitant why? It's pretty darned good.
Kubernetes also has a Secret abstraction, but you probably don't want to start setting up Kubernetes just for secret storage. Vault is good at that.
Re: HashiCorp and Google: easing secret and infrastructure management
#10What do people here use to store and source-control secrets/almost-secrets and make them available to (pick n) terraform/ansible/salt/chef/...? I've heard a lot of good things of Hashicorp Vault ( https://www.vaultproject.io ) but been hesitant to go with it.
Can't recommend Vault enough. By far the easiest and most capable solution to work with. The only downside I can point out is that the multi-cluster/region HA requires expensive enterprise licensing, but that is something most user cases don't require.