Recently, vault capability has been introduced recently in Keycloak (master) with an out-of-the-box implementation that is basically providing secrets in the same format as if mounting secrets volume within Kubernetes [1]. Now there have been considerations regarding name and storage layout which I would like to gather feedback on. The questions are the following ones. Both have arguments for the current implementation explained below: 1. Is there any better way of storing the credentials? 2. Is there a better name for the OOTB implementation? Storage layout: The aim: The plain text vault implementation respects realm to prevent leaking a secret used in one vault into another realm. The implementation also accounts for Kubernetes secret keys naming restrictions [1] which are only consisting of alphanumeric characters, ‘-’, ‘_’ or ‘.’. Note that forward slash is not among allowed characters. Since the vault adheres to the same format as provided by Kubernetes secrets volume, it also limits the file possible names for easy usage. While kubernetes support exposing the secret keys as files in various subdirectories of the mount directory, the default way of providing secrets is via flat file structure (no subdirectories). To achieve structure where secret would be looked up in a file with a given key within a realm directory (i.e. realm_name/secret_key), every secret would have to be accompanied with "path" specification which is not particularly user friendly. Having kubernetes secrets per realm and mounting them into separate directories could be an option, however that limits the ability to easily add a new realm because the Pod definition would need to change with every new realm to incorporate the new volume, and the whole deployment restarted to reflect the changes. Alternatively, secrets for all realms could be mounted into a single directory and "path" would be defined for every secret as described above - but that is error-prone as well. Thus the implementation where realm name and secret key would be separated by a single underscore, and to prevent ambiguity, every underscore within the either realm name and secret keys would be doubled. In other words, to get secret called "some-secret" or "other_secret" from vault from within realm called "realm-1" or "other_realm", the files would be called "realm-1_some-secret" and "other__realm_other__secret", respectively. This is clearly readable in the former case but may be error-prone in the latter. Name: The SPI name was chosen to be "plaintext" since the secrets are stored openly in the files. Perhaps there is a better name? "kubernetes"? Any other suggestion or +1 or -1 with arguments to the alternatives are welcome. I would love to hear your opinion on the two questions. [Apologies for cross-posting, this can gain valuable feedback from both devs and users though] --Hynek [1] https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/configuration/secret/