Add CreateOctKeyOptions to Key Vault Keys
See original GitHub issueNow that oct-hsm is supported, we should consider adding CreateOctKeyOptions
that, at least, has a hardwareProtected
property as well.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Reactions:1
- Comments:6 (6 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
CreateKeyOptions Class (Azure.Security.KeyVault.Keys)
The key-specific properties needed to create a key using the KeyClient. In this article. Definition; Constructors; Properties; Applies to. C#
Read more >Azure Key Vault key client library for .NET | Azure SDK for .NET
Getting started. Install the package. Install the Azure Key Vault keys client library for .NET with NuGet: dotnet add package Azure.Security.KeyVault.Keys ...
Read more >@azure/keyvault-keys - npm
Isomorphic client library for Azure KeyVault's keys.. Latest version: 4.6.0, last published: 3 months ago. Start using @azure/keyvault-keys ...
Read more >How to configure access to key vault | Azure Portal Series
In this episode of the Azure Portal “How-to” series, learn how to configure access to your key vault, secrets, certificates, and keys.
Read more >Accessing Azure key vault keys from ADF - Stack Overflow
If I am not correct you need to request the private keys from Azure Key Vault as secrets, not keys. For example, if...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Also, you can’t use
createKey
to specify a key size, though, which is valid for oct and oct-HSM.Yes,
hardwareProtected
is superfluous on Managed HSM because it’s all hardware-protected, but the APIs are designed to be 100% compatible, even if not fully implemented across the services. What would be the customer benefit in erring just because on MHSM they said{hardwareProtected: false}
? The value is just ignored because they already chose an MHSM.It’s already planned for next release (7.3).