It’s Cybersecurity Awareness Month! Join our interactive training session, or learn about security and AI from 1Password experts.
Fingerprint sensor support on remote systems?
Hello, maybe I missed something. Hence, I am asking before buying a new Mac Keyboard with sensor ... I use 1Password for: local stuff on my Mac on remote systems over ssh Visual Studio Code (VSC) remote over ssh VSC Docker devcontainers on remote Linux systems (In VSC open a folder on a remote system, open the project folder in docker devcontainers) Typing in the vault password is a cumbersome thing, when done too often, and restarting and rebuilding the containers, are new shells / terminals requesting entering the 1Password vault password often. Hence, I am looking for a way to make this simpler and hoped for support of the fingerprint sensor on remote systems.
CLI access for team members in a read only mode
Hi, i've been wondering if there is an option to create a group in your Team where you give users the option to use cli with limited access to only let it do non changing things like reading secrets/variables as from my understanding so far cli access mostly came allong with the permission to manage things. Is there any way to do that currently as otherwise i wouldnt really know how to do that. Kind regards, -kiru
Local Environment File Partial Override and Merging
First of all I am very pleased with the announcement of the new environment feature to mount into local .env files! For our use case it would be beneficial to allow merging different environments into the same .env file or to allow partial overrides of values locally that are persisting locking of the desktop application. For local development, we have a single starter .env file with a lot of empty values and not all of these values are used by all developers. For example we have an authentication related section that contains secrets that are per-developer. For example the developer specific Github PAT, Social Auth provider App identifiers and credentials. These should be still stored in the single env file that is used during development and we would like to avoid fragmentation into multiple files at the moment, as it complicates our containerized configuration. So I have two related feature requests: Would it be possible to allow merging of different environments into a single mounted file (conflict resolution aside for now)? Would it be possible to allow partial overrides of specific values based on the employee vault or local environment?.env files should support more file formats
Hey, I was incredibly excited to see the 1Password beta supporting .env files. After testing it out in the latest beta, I understand that this is incredibly useful for environments that support traditional .env files. However, as someone working with building mobile apps, specifically for iOS, I was hoping that the new feature was a tad more flexible, enabling me to use it in .swift files. Specifically, I was hoping that the new feature would replace references to secrets in existing files rather than creating a new (temporary) file. If it were replacing references in existing files, we could use the .env support in 1Password's Environment with any file template. I understand the downsides to this, but in the mobile landscape it's not uncommon to hardcode select secrets in the binary and even when doing so, we'd like to keep those secrets out of version control. Therefore, we have .swift template files that look like this: enum Secrets { enum SomeService { static var apiKey: String { "{{ op://Acme GitHub Actions/Some Service API Key/API Key }}" } } } These files are named Secrets.tpl.swift and are stored in version control. We use `op inject` to inject the secrets into these files and output them as Secrets.swift, so they're referenced at compile time. Secrets.swift is not checked into version control, of course. I was hoping that we could mount Secrets.tpl.swift or similar in 1Password Environments to have it handle the secrets for us, as .env files aren't really a thing in iOS development. I'm excited to use 1Password Environments with the new .env files in backend development, but I hope you'll consider making it more flexible, so it can accommodate more platforms too. Best regards, Simon B. Støvring1Password Environments should enable grouping environments by service
Hi, The new .env management feature in 1Password is incredibly handy, and I can definitely see us adopting it for our backend services. It makes working with environment variables much more convenient. That said, I’d like to share some concerns regarding scalability. We have several services, each with multiple environments such as development, staging, production, and feature-specific environments. In 1Password Environments, these all of these environments appear side by side in a single list, regardless of which service they belong to. This results in naming schemes like "[Service]: [Environment]". While workable, this approach becomes harder to manage as we scale across multiple services. To illustrate, I’ve included a screenshot below showing what I anticipate the structure to look like in our setup. In this case, Service A and Service B have no relation to each other, yet their environments are intermingled. A way of grouping services would make this much clearer and easier to navigate. Best regards, Simon B. Støvring
New Feature Request: Copy Item Reference
When we right click on a secret there's a function called "Copy Secret Reference" in a UI application. We need similar thing to copy item title as "Copy Title Reference"... ex: Vault: STAGING Title: PROD_URL Copy reference will return "op://STAGING/PROD_URL" Believe me people need this.
console logs: unable to filter out 1password logs in local development
As a front end developer, I have a feature request: the ability to turn off logs from the 1password extension. This could be just a checkbox to enable/disable logs, maybe a developer mode for debugging implementation which enables logs, anything! Maybe logging them as `console.debug` instead of `console.log`? A checkbox for disabling logs on `localhost` only? I love 1password, don't get me wrong. But the logs have been the bane of my existence when working on any web app involving authentication, because there's no way to filter out the logs. Example output: background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <2920926948> 11:00:39.169 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <2920926948>. Duration: 4.3ms 11:00:54.167 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <1746240738> 11:00:54.171 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <1746240738>. Duration: 4.6ms 11:01:09.172 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <4161527562> 11:01:09.183 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <4161527562>. Duration: 11ms 11:01:21.119 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <951950119> 11:01:21.151 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <951950119>. Duration: 31.7ms 11:01:24.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <2174341925> 11:01:24.176 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <2174341925>. Duration: 5.8ms 11:01:39.173 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <1407972505> 11:01:39.186 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <1407972505>. Duration: 12.6ms 11:01:54.171 background.js:80 �� Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <2421987558> 11:01:54.184 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <2421987558>. Duration: 13.1ms 11:02:09.172 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <630129950> 11:02:09.188 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <630129950>. Duration: 15.8ms 11:02:21.119 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <964956985> 11:02:21.123 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <964956985>. Duration: 4.5ms 11:02:24.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <3234675529> 11:02:24.177 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <3234675529>. Duration: 5.8ms 11:02:39.170 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <714895378> 11:02:39.176 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <714895378>. Duration: 5.5ms 11:02:54.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <1997105720> 11:02:54.178 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <1997105720>. Duration: 7.5ms 11:03:09.173 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <1243253266> 11:03:09.199 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <1243253266>. Duration: 26.2ms 11:03:21.175 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <3734071001> 11:03:21.181 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <3734071001>. Duration: 6.5ms 11:03:24.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <1854610928> 11:03:24.173 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <1854610928>. Duration: 2.6ms 11:03:39.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <3181823558> 11:03:39.176 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <3181823558>. Duration: 4.7ms 11:03:54.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <3797715197> 11:03:54.180 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <3797715197>. Duration: 8.8ms 11:04:09.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <2885493011> 11:04:09.177 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <2885493011>. Duration: 5.5ms 11:04:18.049 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <386599336> 11:04:18.052 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <386599336>. Duration: 3.2ms 11:04:24.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <3057763534> 11:04:24.177 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <3057763534>. Duration: 6.6ms 11:04:39.171 background.js:80 📤 Sending <NmLockState> message to native core <3449831082> 11:04:39.174 background.js:80 📥 Received message <NmLockState> from native core <3449831082>. Duration: 3.1ms I've also found these other relevant posts on the same issue with no solution: How to silence 1Password noise in the browser console | 1Password Community Chrome extension background.js logs and/or errors in console | 1Password Community Sending <NumLockState> messages | 1Password CommunityFeature Request: API Endpoints for 1Password Usage Reports
Today, it doesn't look possible to pull the usage reports via API. We have clients who request these reports, and having to login to each customer and manually pull the report from within the Admin portal can be very time consuming. Having the ability to pull these reports via API would speed up this process, and even allow us to schedule these reports.
Service Account Security (feature request)
I just started using service accounts, so forgive me if this has already been discussed. I did not find anything while searching the forum. A few things that would greatly improve the security of service accounts from the top of my head: IP-limits for access Alerts (watchtower?) for unauthorized access attempts I think there should be a way to limit service account access to only certain IP-addresses and environments. My proposal is a combination of pre-defined environments (maintained by 1Password) like AWS region XXX, AWS region YYY ... Lists publicly available here: https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json Github Actions, Github Copilot ... Lists publicly available here: https://api.github.com/meta Other relevant environments you can think of And one should obviously also be able to create private lists of IP-addresses/prefixes (both IPv4 and IPv6) that can be allowed to use a certain service account. This will seriously limit the amount of damage that can happen IF (when) a service account token is leaked somewhere. When this is in place, watchtower (or similar functionality) should be able to alert you if someone tries to use a service account from outside the limited environments where it is allowed to be used. That way, you will immediately be notified if a token might be compromised, and can rotate it. Of course, if you have limited a service account to only be used from a github action, and the evil hacker also uses a github action to access your secrets, you will not know - but that is no worse than the current situation. In best case, the evil perpetrator will test the token from an invalid location first, so you will be notified and can hopefully act before any other secret data has been compromised.
