Page Comparison

• John has been discussing this with Zak/Jason - doing this in stripes-cli.  It sounds like they're coming around to this idea.
• A spike is still needed
  • John Coburn will create the spike and ask for input/help from the rest of the Security team as needed.
• A spike has been created:

  Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key STCLI-248

• Discussions with Zak continue, but progress is unlikely until after WOLFcon

Today:

• Situation has not changed.  John will discuss with Zak again soon

From Craig in slack:

I've been in communication with David Crossley, Wayne Schneider, John Malconian and Peter Murray about the issue above.  They apparently didn't have access to these embargoed issues (SysOps and Core Team).  Peter shared this screenshot with me, which doesn't look right.  I'd like to review this at one of our meetings and come up with a list of changes/improvements for Peter to make.  A few ideas off the top of my head:

1. Add descriptions to each of the security groups, like we have for "FOLIO Security Group"
2. Maybe add a new security group and level for FOLIO devops
3. Review membership of each of these groups and remove users no longer on the project
4. Review the Security Level -> Group mappings.  Some of these don't look quite right to me.

https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T1EPYQDAQ-F075P5YMBJQ/image.png

• If it makes this easier, we could invite Peter to a meeting so we can see the groups/levels interactively and makes adjustments as we go
• Create a new group:  devops, and assign Wayne, John, Ian, David, Peter.  Also create a new security level for "folio devops"
• Remove Johannes Drexl from the SysOps group, he's not longer involved in Folio.
• Not exactly this, but related... 
  • Issues submitted to the SECURITY JIRA project should automatically be embargoed (Security Level = Folio Security Group)
  • The submitter of issues to the SECURITY JIRA project should be able to view issues they submit, regardless of their Security Level
  • Email notification sent to the Folio Security Group when an issue is created in the SECURITY Jira project.
• Action:  Craig McNally to setup a meeting with Peter and representatives from the Security Team to work through these things after WOLFcon?  
  • We need to look into how security level configuration works to gain a better understanding of why it behaves the way it does.  
    • Why do we have All Folio Developers in the "Sys Ops and Core Team" security level?

• We're officially dropping support for this going forward - no new debian packages will be created.
• Once the last version of the debian packages is out of the support window we can call this done.
• Revisit this around Ramsons GA

See

• We did not make the deadline for Quesnelia CSP4. 
• Targeting QCSP5, approval has been requested.  So far 6 .  I think that's enough.  I (Craig) bumped the thread and asked for clarification.
• Release deadline for QCSP5 was yesterday 02 Oct 2024.  I believe the release is ready.

Anything Urgent?
Review Mike's Kanban board?
Review Security board?

Under Review Filter: 

• Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-194

  • We might be able to close this as done.  Need to clarify if this has been fixed in both Q and R.

• Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-180

   
  • Julian Ladisch is creating stories and PRs to address this in the master branch (Ramsons)
  • If we find vulnerabilities, we may want/need to backport this to Quesnelia and possibly Poppy as well.
  • See Dependencies out of support#Spring-5 for additional details, including a GH search which shows the affected repos

• Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-56

   
  • The two linked stories are closed, but we need to double check that the version of grails they upgraded to (and other deps) is sufficient to address the vulnerability. Done. Also confirmed by snyk.

• Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-65

  • Should be addressed in Quesnelia, but has not yet made it into a Poppy CSP.
  • Since this spans multiple repos/teams it's our responsibility to seek approval for this.
  • Further discussion is required.  Do we really think this is worth pushing for a Poppy CSP?  Who is even affected?

Today:

• Regarding 

  Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-177

  /

  Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-182

  /

  Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-189

  , Taras is out until mid-next-week.  I believe he has/will create the necessary JIRAs to get this addressed.  We can check with him on where this stands when he returns.
  • Craig McNally will touch base with Taras to ensure JIRAs are created and linked as needed
  • Do we need to backport these fixes to Q?  If so, it will need to go into CSP6
    • It seems clear that we DON'T need this for Poppy, but probably do need it for Quesnelia

• Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key SECURITY-184

  should be backported to Quesnelia and Poppy.
  • Craig McNally will reach out to Thunderjet (Dennis/Mikita) for next steps (CSP approval, backport JIRAs, etc.)

From slack conversation, I think I've gathered the following:

• In this case (bank account and transit numbers), the information is highly sensitive.  
  • Highly sensitive information should:
    • Be stored in it's own table
    • Accessed via a dedicated API
    • Protected by a dedicated permission
    • Encrypted in the database, not only on disk.  
      • This could mean either:
        • Explicitly encrypting/decrypting in the application layer and storing the encrypted data in postgres
        • Utilizing postgres extensions/modules to encypt certain columns, e.g. via pgcrypto (see https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/encryption-options.html)

Let's review and discuss before providing this feedback to Raman.

Axel Dörrer also suggested that defining classes of sensitivity could help teams determine which techniques are applicable in various situations.  I agree having some general guidelines on this would be helpful.

• regular data
  • low sensitive - permission based on same API
  • high sensitive - permission based on dedicated API

It would probably help to provide concrete examples of data in each class.  This can be a longer term effort, we don't need to sort out all the details today.

Axel Dörrer 

Due to some absences on different reasons the group stalled. Axel will try to reactivate the group.