You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the readme, you mention that environment variables are available to all steps within a job and that we should work to prevent them from being exploited or misused by malicious actions.
Would this issue be negated if the get-secrets action wrote the secrets as outputs rather than environment variables? The secrets wouldn't be automatically available to other steps, but could be passed into them explicitly as required, by the job itself.
From a security point of view, this feels to me like the more secure option; is there another advantage that environment variables have over outputs that would prevent this from being done?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi
In the readme, you mention that environment variables are available to all steps within a job and that we should work to prevent them from being exploited or misused by malicious actions.
Would this issue be negated if the
get-secrets
action wrote the secrets as outputs rather than environment variables? The secrets wouldn't be automatically available to other steps, but could be passed into them explicitly as required, by the job itself.From a security point of view, this feels to me like the more secure option; is there another advantage that environment variables have over outputs that would prevent this from being done?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: