Skip to content

azurerm_storage_account - Remove TLS1_3 as an valid value for min_tls_version#32072

Open
magodo wants to merge 1 commit intohashicorp:mainfrom
magodo:storage_min_tls_version_remove_1_3
Open

azurerm_storage_account - Remove TLS1_3 as an valid value for min_tls_version#32072
magodo wants to merge 1 commit intohashicorp:mainfrom
magodo:storage_min_tls_version_remove_1_3

Conversation

@magodo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@magodo magodo commented Mar 31, 2026

Community Note

  • Please vote on this PR by adding a 👍 reaction to the original PR to help the community and maintainers prioritize for review
  • Please do not leave comments along the lines of "+1", "me too" or "any updates", they generate extra noise for PR followers and do not help prioritize for review

Description

Remove TLS1_3 as an valid value for min_tls_version for azurerm_storage_account. This is because:

Azure Storage supports two versions of the TLS protocol: 1.2 and 1.3. While TLS 1.3 is now supported, the ability to enforce it as the minimum TLS version for Azure Storage accounts isn't currently supported. The recommended minimum TLS version is TLS 1.2. Clients using the latest TLS versions will automatically negotiate to use TLS 1.3 if available.

(https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/transport-layer-security-configure-minimum-version?tabs=portal)

The service team is working on supporting TLS 1.3 as the minimum TLS version. Once supported, we can add it back. For now, this PR just remove it as a valid option to avoid confusion.

Related to: #26712

PR Checklist

  • I have followed the guidelines in our Contributing Documentation.
  • I have checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change.
  • I have checked if my changes close any open issues. If so please include appropriate closing keywords below.
  • I have updated/added Documentation as required written in a helpful and kind way to assist users that may be unfamiliar with the resource / data source.
  • I have used a meaningful PR title to help maintainers and other users understand this change and help prevent duplicate work.
    For example: “resource_name_here - description of change e.g. adding property new_property_name_here

Changes to existing Resource / Data Source

  • I have added an explanation of what my changes do and why I'd like you to include them (This may be covered by linking to an issue above, but may benefit from additional explanation).
  • I have written new tests for my resource or datasource changes & updated any relevant documentation.
  • I have successfully run tests with my changes locally. If not, please provide details on testing challenges that prevented you running the tests.
  • (For changes that include a state migration only). I have manually tested the migration path between relevant versions of the provider.

Testing

  • My submission includes Test coverage as described in the Contribution Guide and the tests pass. (if this is not possible for any reason, please include details of why you did or could not add test coverage)

Change Log

Below please provide what should go into the changelog (if anything) conforming to the Changelog Format documented here.

  • azurerm_resource - support for the thing1 property [GH-00000]

This is a (please select all that apply):

  • Bug Fix
  • New Feature (ie adding a service, resource, or data source)
  • Enhancement
  • Breaking Change

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #0000

AI Assistance Disclosure

  • AI Assisted - This contribution was made by, or with the assistance of, AI/LLMs

Rollback Plan

If a change needs to be reverted, we will publish an updated version of the provider.

Changes to Security Controls

Are there any changes to security controls (access controls, encryption, logging) in this pull request? If so, explain.

Note

If this PR changes meaningfully during the course of review please update the title and description as required.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants