-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
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
No support for certificate based secure communication #328
Comments
@sudhamani-hcl , Please describe the solution you would like with details like if SSL only needed for the command requests to the device? or also for async data push from the device? |
Hi @lenny-intel, The requirement is:
Thanks, |
@sudhamani-hcl , SSL command requests to end device should work today. i.e. no special cert need if using standard CA certs from base Alpine image (Docker) or system (Snap) Allowing SSL from device to device service is what will need to be added and it should be on a separate port from the standard Device Service APIs which are called from the other local EdgeX Services. |
@sudhamani-hcl you can leverage the SDK service to get secret provider to retrive credentials from the secret store |
Thanks @lenny-intel for the input. However I have below query. |
Thank you @cloudxxx8 for the response. |
Yes, see docs here: |
Hi @sudhamani-hcl , just wonder if you have any plan or bandwidth to implement this issue and edgexfoundry/device-mqtt-go#616 in the next Odessa 3.2 release? Thanks. |
Hi @lindseysimple , Please note that we wanted it for one of our needs and we went ahead without security. And please understand that currently we do not have bandwidth to implement this. Thanks, |
🚀 Feature Request
Relevant Package [REQUIRED]
This feature request is for certificate based secure communication.Description [REQUIRED]
There is no support for certificate based secure client and server in the current version 3 of device-rest serviceDescribe the solution you'd like
No. It would be good if someone implements this feature.Describe alternatives you've considered
NoThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: