2024-08-29 Meeting notes

Craig McNally 

Axel Dörrer 

Chris Rutledge 

Jakub Skoczen 

Skott Klebe 

• 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.

Today:

• John Coburn is unable to attend today.  Let's check in next week.

• Only remaining gotcha is how this will work with STSH (strict transport security headers)
• John Coburn created a ticket to include CORS in the proxy
  
  • STCLI-247 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Kevin Day will test something by Zak here
• TAMU is using an older version of Okapi which is making things more complicated, Kevin is making due.

Today:

• Update from John Coburn via slack:
  • "I believe Zak set up a branch with CORs updates to stripes-cli. Not sure if it's been merged yet." 
• There is a PR linked in the Jira above, and it is not merged yet.  https://github.com/folio-org/stripes-cli/pull/351
• Kevin Day would like to suggest not making this specific to localhost:3000
  
  • See https://github.com/folio-org/stripes-cli/compare/master...kaladay:stripes-cli-2.x-backports:proxy-strip-acao-custom

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

TODO:

• 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.
• Action: Craig 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?

Today:

• No update today- Check in on this 05 Sep 2024 

FOLIO-3896 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

Under Review Filter:  Getting issues...

• Action:  Create a Jira for folio devops to set Strict Transport Security header in hosted reference environments.  Then link the story to SECURITY-170 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Craig McNally will create the story and link it up. DONE
  • See  FOLIO-4049 - Getting issue details... STATUS
• Unembargoed several issues which were rejected/completed (SECURITY-171-178
  • SECURITY-177 - Getting issue details... STATUS  remains open.  See also SECURITY-182 - Getting issue details... STATUS
    • Action:  Craig will provide updates via slack as Taras digs into this.
• Discussed  SECURITY-171 - Getting issue details... STATUS .  Will keep on the board for tracking purposes.
  • Action: Julian Ladisch to create a brief wiki page listing 3rd party dependencies/frameworks/etc. which are out of support.  Maybe we should link to this from the flower release notes? DONE (or at least started!)

Today:

• SECURITY-180 - Getting issue details... STATUS  
  • 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
• SECURITY-56 - Getting issue details... STATUS  
  • 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.
• SECURITY-65 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • 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?

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.