Refine the recursive platform security architecture to make OpenBao the canonical runtime secret authority, with SOPS/age, K8s Secrets, and the emergency bundle reframed as bootstrap/delivery/break-glass mechanisms. - credential-management standard v0.2: add OpenBao runtime authority section, rotation rules, and prohibited patterns (OpenBao-as-PDP, tenant platform-root) - platform-identity-security-architecture: mark implemented; add flex-auth/Topaz implications, Coulomb onboarding path, and a production-readiness checklist - NK-WP-0004/0005: document bootstrap-to-OpenBao handoff boundary - NK-WP-0006/0007: status -> done with implementation reviews; add recursive platform/tenant split and OpenBao broker/audit role for object-storage STS vending - NK-WP-0008: status -> done; repoint corpus to infospace-bench - new ADR-0007 (orchestration boundary), ADR-0008 (STS vending boundary), and the object-storage STS credential-vending architecture Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
16 KiB
Platform Identity and Security Architecture
Status: implemented architecture baseline for NetKingdom/Railiance/Coulomb Date: 2026-05-18
Purpose
This document captures the production-oriented identity, authorization, MFA, credential, and bootstrap architecture for the platform we are building. It deliberately treats Coulomb as the first internal tenant and reference workload, not as the platform itself.
The architecture must be recursive: the same platform that protects future tenants also protects the services and repositories used to build and operate the platform. That recursion is useful, but it is also where many security designs accidentally collapse into self-administering root power. This document exists to prevent that.
Core Model
Bootstrap plane
establishes initial trust before normal platform services exist
Platform control plane
operates identity, MFA, secrets, policy, audit, and authorization
Tenant planes
run Coulomb and future customer/project/domain workloads
Coulomb is the first internal tenant. It is also the reference tenant that helps validate the platform. It must not become the platform root of trust merely because it is first.
Planes
Bootstrap Plane
The bootstrap plane exists before the full platform is alive. It owns the minimal authority needed to create and recover the control plane.
Responsibilities:
- host provisioning and hardening
- root age/SOPS material and emergency bundles
- initial cluster access
- initial identity service deployment
- initial secret injection
- break-glass recovery
- transition to managed runtime authority
Owned primarily by railiance-infra, railiance-cluster, and the
credential bootstrap work in net-kingdom.
Platform Control Plane
The platform control plane owns shared security services.
Responsibilities:
- NetKingdom IAM Profile
- lightweight identity mode through key-cape
- expanded identity mode through Keycloak
- MFA/token lifecycle through privacyIDEA where applicable
- canonical authorization through flex-auth
- delegated authorization runtime through Topaz first, with other PDPs as adapters
- runtime secret authority through OpenBao
- audit and explanation records
- platform service secrets, dynamic credentials, leases, and rotation
Owned conceptually by net-kingdom; deployed through the Railiance stack.
Tenant Plane
Tenant planes are where workloads live. Coulomb is tenant zero/reference tenant; later tenants may be projects, customers, domains, sandboxes, or isolated deployments.
Responsibilities:
- protected services and repositories
- tenant-owned resources
- tenant-specific groups, policies, and service accounts
- local enforcement of authorization decisions
- workload audit events and diagnostics
Tenant administrators may manage their tenant resources. They must not be able to alter platform root trust, global identity configuration, platform break-glass material, or the policy pipeline that governs the platform itself.
Component Responsibilities
| Component | Primary role | Must not become |
|---|---|---|
net-kingdom |
canonical security architecture, IAM Profile, SSO/MFA, credential bootstrap decisions | a deployment repo for every stack layer |
key-cape |
lightweight IAM implementation of the NetKingdom IAM Profile | a general-purpose IAM platform or authorization engine |
| Keycloak | expanded-mode IAM and optional Keycloak Authorization Services adapter | the canonical model for all platform authorization |
| privacyIDEA | MFA/token authority, especially in lightweight/key-cape mode | a policy decision point for application resources |
| OpenBao | runtime platform secrets service, dynamic credential broker, lease/revocation point, and audit source for secret access | the bootstrap root of trust or an application-specific configuration store |
flex-auth |
authorization control plane, CARING descriptors, policy packages, decision envelopes, audit/explain | an identity provider or backend-specific wrapper |
| Topaz | first delegated authorization runtime/PDP for flex-auth | the platform control plane or identity provider |
| Railiance repos | converged infrastructure, cluster, platform services, enablement, and app deployment | the source of security policy semantics |
Identity Path
Human/service/agent principal
|
v
NetKingdom IAM Profile
|
+-- lightweight mode: key-cape
| Authelia + LLDAP + privacyIDEA
|
+-- expanded mode: Keycloak
Keycloak + LDAP/Entra federation + MFA integration
Applications depend on the IAM Profile, not on the concrete provider. key-cape is the lightweight profile implementation. Keycloak is the expanded-mode profile implementation. privacyIDEA provides MFA/token capabilities where the deployment mode uses it.
Identity answers: who is this actor, how was the actor authenticated, what coarse claims are asserted, and what assurance evidence exists?
Identity does not answer final resource-specific authorization.
Authorization Path
Identity claims from IAM Profile
|
v
flex-auth
resource registry
policy packages
CARING descriptors
decision/audit/explain envelope
|
+-- standalone evaluator
+-- Topaz delegated PDP
+-- optional Keycloak AuthZ adapter
+-- future OpenFGA/SpiceDB/OPA/Cedar adapters
|
v
Protected service enforcement
Authorization answers: may this actor perform this action on this resource in this context, and what explanation/audit/CARING metadata supports that answer?
Protected services enforce decisions locally. flex-auth is the canonical policy and decision boundary; delegated PDPs are runtime implementations behind it.
Secret And Credential Path
Bootstrap SOPS/age material
|
v
OpenBao platform secrets service
KV v2 platform configuration
dynamic database credentials
Kubernetes auth / workload identity
future object-storage credential brokering
audit devices and lease/revocation records
|
+-- direct OpenBao clients
+-- External Secrets Operator / synced Kubernetes Secrets
+-- CSI-mounted secrets where appropriate
|
v
Platform and tenant workloads
SOPS/age remains the bootstrap and Git-at-rest protection mechanism. It can create the initial cluster secrets and emergency recovery bundles, but it should not become the long-lived runtime authority for every workload secret.
OpenBao is the runtime platform secrets service once the control plane is alive. It owns secret leases, revocation, audit, dynamic credentials, and workload-facing secret delivery patterns. Workloads should receive scoped secrets or short-lived credentials, not platform-root material. Tenant administrators may manage tenant-scoped secrets through approved policy paths; they must not gain access to OpenBao root tokens, unseal keys, platform mounts, or global secret engine configuration.
OpenBao does not replace identity or authorization. NetKingdom IAM identifies actors and workloads; flex-auth decides whether a credential or secret request is allowed; OpenBao stores, issues, audits, and revokes the resulting secret material.
Recursive Trust Rule
Normal tenant administration must never be sufficient to alter the platform root of trust.
This applies even when the tenant is Coulomb. Coulomb can be a tenant and a reference workload, but platform-root actions require platform control plane authority and appropriate bootstrap/break-glass safeguards.
Examples of platform-root actions:
- changing IAM Profile semantics
- rotating root bootstrap keys
- changing break-glass access
- changing global MFA requirements
- activating authorization policy that governs platform administration
- changing flex-auth/Topaz policy import pipelines
- changing OpenBao root tokens, unseal policy, platform mounts, or global auth methods
- changing audit retention or tamper-evidence settings
Tenant Model
Every protected resource should belong to a tenant or to the platform control plane.
Suggested identifiers:
tenant:platform # platform control plane resources
tenant:coulomb # first internal/reference tenant
tenant:sandbox:<name> # sandbox tenants
tenant:customer:<name> # future customer tenants
Tenant membership and platform membership are distinct. A subject may be
an administrator in tenant:coulomb without being a platform operator.
CARING descriptors should explicitly identify scope and tenant when the access is tenant-scoped. Platform-scoped descriptors should be rare, audited, and usually condition-bound.
Bootstrap To Runtime Transition
Production setup should move through explicit trust states:
- Bare host trust - provisioned and verified by Railiance infra.
- Cluster trust - Kubernetes runtime exists and is verified.
- Bootstrap secret trust - age/SOPS and emergency bundles are established.
- Bootstrap identity trust - local/bootstrap identity can operate enough to install full identity services.
- Runtime secret trust - OpenBao is deployed, initialized, unsealed, audited, backed up, and ready to issue scoped secrets.
- Runtime identity trust - key-cape or Keycloak becomes the normal IAM Profile issuer.
- Runtime authorization trust - flex-auth and Topaz are initialized with platform and tenant policies.
- Tenant onboarding trust - Coulomb and later tenants register resources and receive scoped authority.
Each transition needs a verification check and a rollback/recovery path.
Production Topology
For an initial production-capable Coulomb deployment:
railiance-infra
host baseline, SSH, age keys, emergency material
railiance-cluster
Kubernetes, ingress, cert-manager, network policy
railiance-platform
OpenBao, PostgreSQL, object storage, platform service secret delivery
key-cape or Keycloak
privacyIDEA where used
flex-auth
Topaz
railiance-apps
Coulomb services as tenant:coulomb workloads
net-kingdom owns the architecture and standards. Railiance owns the
converged deployment layers. Component repos own their implementation
contracts.
Orchestration Implication
A future orchestration repo may be justified, but only after the state machine is clear. It should not own resources directly. It should own safe sequencing across repos.
Possible responsibilities:
- verify Railiance preconditions
- initialize credential bootstrap
- deploy or validate identity services
- deploy or validate flex-auth and Topaz
- run IAM Profile conformance checks
- run authorization conformance checks
- produce a platform security readiness report
This orchestration layer should build on Railiance capabilities rather than bypassing the Railiance stack boundaries.
ADR-0007 records the current decision: keep orchestration in Railiance playbooks for now, with NetKingdom defining the trust-state model, readiness checks, OpenBao boundaries, and security semantics.
flex-auth And Topaz Implications
flex-auth work must preserve the recursive boundary between platform control-plane resources and tenant resources.
Required implications:
- CARING descriptors must include scope and tenant metadata for tenant-scoped access, and must mark rare platform-scoped access explicitly.
- Policy packages must distinguish
tenant:platformpolicy from tenant-local packages such astenant:coulomb. - Decision envelopes must carry subject, issuer, audience, tenant, protected-system id, resource, action, requested TTL where relevant, assurance evidence, obligations, deny reasons, and audit correlation ids.
- Topaz is a delegated PDP runtime behind flex-auth. It must not become the canonical policy model, identity provider, or platform control plane.
- Audit and explain records must be durable enough to reconstruct why a platform-root, secret, credential, or tenant-administration decision was allowed or denied.
- Platform-root guardrails must deny tenant administrators the ability to alter IAM Profile semantics, OpenBao platform mounts/auth methods, flex-auth policy import pipelines, Topaz runtime configuration, or platform audit retention.
OpenBao secret access and dynamic credential requests follow the same authorization rule: identity proves the actor or workload, flex-auth decides whether the request is permitted, and OpenBao stores, issues, leases, audits, and revokes the secret material.
Coulomb Tenant Onboarding Path
The first Coulomb tenant onboarding path should be repeatable before it becomes automated:
- Register
tenant:coulombas a tenant distinct fromtenant:platform. - Map Coulomb human, service, and agent principals to IAM Profile claims with issuer, audience, subject, group, tenant, and assurance evidence.
- Register Coulomb protected systems and resources in flex-auth with stable protected-system ids.
- Import tenant-scoped policy packages and CARING descriptors for Coulomb resources.
- Initialize the delegated PDP runtime, starting with Topaz, using only the policy packages approved for the tenant and platform boundary.
- Provision Coulomb workload secret paths, Kubernetes auth roles, or delivery mechanisms in OpenBao without granting access to platform mounts, unseal/recovery material, or global auth configuration.
- Run audit readiness checks before admitting production traffic: identity issuance, flex-auth decision envelope, Topaz health, OpenBao audit event, workload enforcement event, and correlation id.
The onboarding path is complete when a Coulomb workload can authenticate, receive a scoped authorization decision, obtain only the allowed secret or short-lived credential, enforce the decision locally, and produce an auditable record without receiving platform-root authority.
Production Readiness Checks
Before the security platform is production-ready, each trust state needs an explicit check:
| Area | Readiness check |
|---|---|
| MFA and identity | key-cape or Keycloak issues IAM Profile-compatible tokens; privacyIDEA or the selected MFA provider enforces required assurance for privileged actions |
| Bootstrap and recovery | age/SOPS material, emergency bundle, and break-glass credentials are present, tested, and separated from tenant administration |
| OpenBao runtime secrets | OpenBao is initialized, unsealed or auto-unsealed by the approved mechanism, backed up, audited, and using scoped auth methods and mounts |
| Secret rotation | service, database, OpenBao-issued, and break-glass rotation paths have documented blast radius and verification steps |
| flex-auth policy state | platform and tenant policy packages are versioned, reviewable, imported, and explainable |
| Topaz runtime | delegated PDP health, data freshness, policy load status, and fail-closed behavior are verified |
| Tenant onboarding | tenant:coulomb resources, claims, policies, OpenBao paths, and audit correlation are registered and tested |
| Audit sink | identity, flex-auth, Topaz, OpenBao, Kubernetes, and workload audit records land in durable storage with restore/drill coverage |
| Break-glass | emergency access works when normal identity is unavailable and produces a post-event review record |
Open Questions
- Where is the durable audit log stored for platform-root decisions?
- Where are OpenBao audit logs durably shipped, and how are they included in tamper-evidence and restore drills?
- Which actions require dual control or human confirmation?
- How is break-glass use recorded when normal identity is unavailable?
- Which workloads consume OpenBao directly, via External Secrets Operator, or via CSI-mounted secrets?
- Which tenant metadata is required before a service can register resources with flex-auth?
- When does the platform switch from key-cape lightweight mode to Keycloak expanded mode?
- Does Topaz run centrally for the platform, per tenant, or per service for the first production deployment?