-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 141
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
Unable to opt-out of DataExport
token scope
#3531
Comments
This token scope is now always required since the feature flag to disable host requests was removed with v1.0.0. We're working on additional changes to make these scopes no longer needed in the future, but we don't have an ETA at this time. |
Hi @chrismuellner, Thank you very much for your reply. |
DataExport
token scope
I'd like to return to this topic, since I think I figured out a feasible path to a least-privilege approach: we currently have to provide an
Lacking the officially required Checking from the source code which endpoints are predefined, I find the following inside
Apart from This yields the idea to implement the following changes: This approach automatically limits the In case that this approach looks promising to you, I would be more than happy to provide a feature PR. |
We've deprecated the "Mark for termination" event with v1.4.0 (release notes) and will remove it in a future release of the Operator. Since Oneagent 301 the shutdown information is directly sent by the Host agent (release notes). When the Operator no longer sends this event the following token scopes and endpoints will no longer be used:
|
Thank you for this update @chrismuellner . |
I have the same issue and would like to get solved as correct. |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Our customers are trying to update the Dynatrace-operator and they are receiving the following message:
token 'apiToken' is missing the following scopes: [ DataExport ]
We are a Service Provider for Dynatrace and cannot hand over tokens with all the permissions specified in the official public documentation.
One of our colleagues has proposed this PR #670 a while ago , but we see the latest version of the code reveals this was reverted/removed.
Describe the solution you'd like
Is there any possibility to add this back?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: