Add option to Healthchecks hook to NOT include logs in payload data #460
Labels
No Label
bug
data loss
design finalized
good first issue
new feature area
question / support
security
waiting for response
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: borgmatic-collective/borgmatic#460
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
What I'm trying to do and why
Using the Healthchecks hook currently includes borgmatic logs in the payload data sent to Healthchecks, which can contain (private) info about the files in the filesystem.
This is happening by default, and even when you specifically specify
--monitoring-verbosity -1
.Steps to reproduce (if a bug)
borgmatic --verbosity -1 --syslog-verbosity 1 --monitoring-verbosity -1
Expected behavior (if a bug)
Please consider adding an option to NOT include logs in the payload data sent to Healthchecks.
Other notes / implementation ideas
Consider making the default behaviour to NOT include the logs. In my opinion we should not leak possible private info like this by default.
Environment
borgmatic version: [1.5.20]
borgmatic installation method: [pip3]
Borg version: [borg 1.1.16]
Python version: [Python 3.9.5]
operating system and version: [Ubuntu 21.04]
I apologize for the lengthy delay here. This is now implemented in master and will be part of the next release. The option looks like:
I did leave the default as true though for backwards compatibility.
Released in borgmatic 1.6.1!
Great, thank you for the fix @witten !
Hey @witten, fyi it's just a minor but
generate-borgmatic-config
with the--source
and--destination
feature (which is gerat by the way!) didn't correctly merge these new options into my config file;I guess it's because of the new
healthchecks
key which has become like a "section" now...Anyways only letting you know FYI :-)
Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention! I've filed #536 to track it, and I have a fix in hand that will be part of the next release.