this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
32 points (92.1% liked)

Selfhosted

39842 readers
466 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
32
Alternatives to Hashicorp Vault? (feddit.cl)
submitted 4 months ago by vsis@feddit.cl to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I want a centralized way to manage keys and secrets. And some service users with little privileges over a subset of the secrets. Ideally, a service user only should be able to read its own subset of secrets. So, let's say, if a container gets pwned it will only read its secrets and no more. It should be FOSS and self-hostable.

And a beautiful nice-to-have feature would be access log, to know who read what and when.

My only experience with something similar is Hashicorp Vault, but I don't want to be near any Hashicorp stuff ever again.

Do you know a FOSS alternative to Vault?

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

OpenBao, fork from vault

https://github.com/openbao/openbao

[–] captainjaneway@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Why didn't you like Hashicorps Vault? I want to know for my own edification.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Recently they changed their license at a drop of the hat, then got purchased by IBM.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Can't believe that's gone through. They took JBoss when they bought RedHat so now it doesn't have to compete with Websphere and when they bought HashiCorp Openshift doesn't have to compete with Nomad. At this rate they'll buy CyberArk and then that's no more competition with Vault.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

To make matters worse, Red Hat who own Ansible are also owned by IBM.

All hail International Business autoMation

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

There's a little overlap with things like Terraform but it's not as bad as if they bought the companies that owned Chef or Puppet.

[–] vsis@feddit.cl 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Vault features are cool. I really like it. But with Hashicorp now there is this big risk of "rug pulling" regarding its license.

The wise thing, in my opinion, is to avoid this company as much as possible.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 10 points 4 months ago

Can't speak for OP, but the Vault software itself is fine. It's their recent change in licensing that has a lot of people upset and looking for alternatives:

https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license

That is why today we are announcing that HashiCorp is changing its source code license from Mozilla Public License v2.0 (MPL 2.0) to the Business Source License (BSL, also known as BUSL) v1.1 on all future releases of HashiCorp products. HashiCorp APIs, SDKs, and almost all other libraries will remain MPL 2.0.

BSL 1.1 is a source-available license that allows copying, modification, redistribution, non-commercial use, and commercial use under specific conditions. With this change we are following a path similar to other companies in recent years.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Infisical?

https://github.com/Infisical/infisical

[–] magguzu@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

Bitwarden now has their own secrets manager!

https://bitwarden.com/products/secrets-manager/

Ignore the enterpriseyness of that link. Once you log in normally just make an org and you should see the option to use secrets manager. It's free for up to two orgs.

[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

They just added a fee so that AWS can't copy it without paying. What's the big deal.

[–] vsis@feddit.cl 1 points 4 months ago

It's no longer open source. Big Deal in my books.