Skip to content

SLEAK-5875: clarify RDS at-rest encryption is opt-in, not default#214

Closed
agustinoli wants to merge 3 commits into
developfrom
fix/SLEAK-5875-db-encryption-docs
Closed

SLEAK-5875: clarify RDS at-rest encryption is opt-in, not default#214
agustinoli wants to merge 3 commits into
developfrom
fix/SLEAK-5875-db-encryption-docs

Conversation

@agustinoli

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • The bot was answering that databases are encrypted with KMS at rest — they're not, by default. Confirmed in core/apps/crm/modules/dependency/aws/rds.py: storage_encrypted defaults to False, only on if a KMS key is configured at dependency creation time.
  • Added a bullet next to the existing SSL/TLS note in content/docs/es/project/dependency/index.mdx clarifying that at-rest encryption is opt-in.
  • Ported the whole "Dependency Access" section (missing entirely) to the EN version of the page, including the corrected bullet, for parity between languages.

Ref: SLEAK-5875

Test plan

  • make build — no new broken links/anchors introduced
  • Review EN + ES wording in preview

The bot was answering that databases are encrypted with KMS at rest.
storage_encrypted defaults to False in the RDS Pulumi module
(core/apps/crm/modules/dependency/aws/rds.py) — it's only on if a KMS
key is configured at creation time. Added that as a bullet next to the
existing SSL/TLS note in ES, and ported the whole "Dependency Access"
section to EN, which didn't have it at all.
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@agustinoli, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 31 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 2b4d6644-e139-4b8d-b271-81294b4f491c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4258b0c and db8fe9d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • content/docs/en/project/dependency/index.mdx
  • content/docs/es/project/dependency/index.mdx
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix/SLEAK-5875-db-encryption-docs

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

…AK-5875)

The previous wording described the pre-06/2026 behavior. Since
ae8c16d1 (RDS improvements), storageEncrypted defaults to true in the
creation schema for MySQL/PostgreSQL/MariaDB/Oracle, and Aurora has
always hardcoded storage_encrypted=True with no opt-out. Only
dependencies created before that change may lack the flag — called
that out instead of stating a blanket "not encrypted by default".
@agustinoli

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Cerrado a favor de #216, que consolida los cambios de SLEAK-5896, SLEAK-5875 y el fix de anchor en un solo PR.

@agustinoli agustinoli closed this Jul 1, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant