From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B2621FF142 for ; Fri, 22 May 2026 12:03:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 50CA7669B; Fri, 22 May 2026 12:03:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Christoph Heiss To: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [PATCH datacenter-manager] api: certificates: require only AUDIT for listing certificate info Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 11:53:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20260522100231.216439-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.53.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779444142133 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.075 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [certificates.rs] Message-ID-Hash: SQ7OUGVYJKVPGV73UQYSN7N4ZWY7ZFMA X-Message-ID-Hash: SQ7OUGVYJKVPGV73UQYSN7N4ZWY7ZFMA X-MailFrom: c.heiss@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: No need to have listing endpoint require MODIFY permissions. Signed-off-by: Christoph Heiss --- Had a brief discussion with Shannon about this - the endpoint could probably be even public, not requiring any particular permissions? Since certificate information isn't private (by definition) anyway. Or are there plans to eventually add support for having multiple certificates or something? In which case it *might* be useful to have not public. Happy to send a patch for that too, but wanted to quickly discuss it beforehand. server/src/api/nodes/certificates.rs | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/server/src/api/nodes/certificates.rs b/server/src/api/nodes/certificates.rs index 47aef7a..fc12e47 100644 --- a/server/src/api/nodes/certificates.rs +++ b/server/src/api/nodes/certificates.rs @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ use proxmox_acme_api::{AcmeDomain, CertificateInfo}; use proxmox_rest_server::WorkerTask; use proxmox_schema::api_types::NODE_SCHEMA; -use pdm_api_types::PRIV_SYS_MODIFY; +use pdm_api_types::{PRIV_SYS_AUDIT, PRIV_SYS_MODIFY}; use crate::auth::certs::{API_CERT_FN, API_KEY_FN}; @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ fn get_certificate_info() -> Result { }, }, access: { - permission: &Permission::Privilege(&["system", "certificates"], PRIV_SYS_MODIFY, false), + permission: &Permission::Privilege(&["system", "certificates"], PRIV_SYS_AUDIT, false), }, returns: { type: Array, -- 2.53.0