3 ms·
You could have a mechanism to grant yourself temporary write access on an as-needed basis. At Zalando everyone has read access (except to secrets). You can req
by DasIch 6y ago
You could have a mechanism to grant yourself temporary write access on an as-needed basis.
At Zalando everyone has read access (except to secrets). You can request write access with a command line tool another employee can then approve it. There is also an option to request access with an incident ticket, in that case you immediately get write access without approval by someone else. Write access expires after 1h.
Access to the underlying AWS account uses the same mechanism.
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoBut then when you’ve unlocked access, you could just make the same fat-fingered mistakes due to implicit use-context settings. You might use use-context to set yourself to that restricted production context at the start of an incident. 30 minutes later you resolved the incident, but the access is still active and whoops you delete a deployment you thought you were deleting from a stage experiment or something. All that does is add an extra hoop to jump through. People need to stop believing that adding extra bureaucratic hoops offers any type of safety - it doesn’t. If you want to restrict access then you need to actually restrict it and convert on-call alert responsibilities to a central devops team that, like it or not, is responsible for solving everyone else’s problems. If you don’t want a central devops team that can be paged and on the hook for everyone else’s systems, then you cannot have write access controls. There’s just no way out of this dilemma. Temporary access that can be self-granted == no access control. Temporary access that requires admin approval == admin team is on pager duty for every other team.