Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Fortinet - ResponseOnIP Playbook ] Deployment Fails #8985

Closed
melv33n opened this issue Sep 11, 2023 · 10 comments
Closed

[Fortinet - ResponseOnIP Playbook ] Deployment Fails #8985

melv33n opened this issue Sep 11, 2023 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels
Playbook Playbook specialty review needed

Comments

@melv33n
Copy link

melv33n commented Sep 11, 2023

Describe the bug
When trying to use SystemAssigned Identity on Fortinet - ResponseOnIP Playbook fails on deployment. Every Pre-requisite is satisfied:

Custom connector
Function App

Deployment prompts:
imagen

{ "code": "MissingIdentityIds", "message": "The identity ids must not be null or empty for 'UserAssigned' identity type." }

It seems that the template restores the values and doesn't allows you to use SystemAssigned instead of UserAssigned identities. Other playbooks allow you to do it.

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Follow the deployment pre-requisites mentioned in fortinet folder
  2. Select the template
    imagen
  3. Set Name and procced to parameters tab
  4. Insert SystemManaged identity name
    imagen
  5. See the deployment Error
    imagen
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for submitting an Issue to the Azure Sentinel GitHub repo! You should expect an initial response to your Issue from the team within 5 business days. Note that this response may be delayed during holiday periods. For urgent, production-affecting issues please raise a support ticket via the Azure Portal.

@melv33n melv33n changed the title Deployment Fails [Fortinet - ResponseOnIP Playbook ] Deployment Fails Sep 11, 2023
@v-sudkharat v-sudkharat added the Playbook Playbook specialty review needed label Sep 11, 2023
@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @melv33n, we are trying to reproduce this issue on our end and will get back to you once there is an update

@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @melv33n, we are still trying to reproduce this issue on our end and will get back to you once there is an update

@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

v-rbajaj commented Oct 5, 2023

Hi @melv33n, we have reached out to concerned team from our end and will get back to you once there is an update

@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @melv33n, we have reached out to concerned team from our end and will get back to you by 17 Oct 2023

@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @melv33n, we have reached out to concerned team from our end and will get back to you by 23 Oct 2023

@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @melv33n, sorry for delay, we have reached out to concerned team from our end and will get back to you by 27 Oct 2023

@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @melv33n, sorry for delay, we have reached out to concerned team from our end and will get back to you by 31 Oct 2023

@v-rbajaj
Copy link
Contributor

v-rbajaj commented Nov 1, 2023

Hi @melv33n, sorry for delay, we have reached out to concerned team from our end and will get back to you by 03 Nov 2023

@manishkumar1991
Copy link
Contributor

@melv33n ,

We've created FortiGate playbooks specifically tailored to operate based on user identity. This is explicitly stated within the playbook's code.

image

Considering your note about system-assigned managed identity functioning with other playbooks, we attempted a similar approach with a different Fortinet FortiGate playbook, but encountered an error.

image

Your feedback will be taken into account and added to our backlog for future consideration, although we cannot currently provide an estimated time of resolution.

@v-rbajaj v-rbajaj closed this as completed Nov 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Playbook Playbook specialty review needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants