2024-11-07 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.
• A spike has been created: STCLI-248 - Getting issue details... STATUS
• Work continues, it isn't clear at the moment exactly what all the requirements are wrt what the proxy needs to do, e.g. STSH, etc.
• PR is up (https://github.com/folio-org/stripes-cli/pull/358) for handling this with the STSH headers.  Looking to merge this soon, after the switch over from Ramsons to Sunflower development.
• For now the STSH headers are just being stripped.  We can revisit later.

Today:

• PR has been approved, just needs to be merged

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?

Today:

• (Craig) no progress due to lack of time to spend on this.  Does someone else have time to work through this with Peter?

FOLIO-3896 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• 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

Anything Urgent?
Review Mike's Kanban board?
Review Security board?
Review labels=security?

Under Review Filter:  Getting issues...

• Snyk review - criticals!
  • mod-spring-sample.  Several criticals.  Need a story to bump dependencies to the Ramsons versions and see if there's anything left.
    • Julian found this:  https://folio-org.atlassian.net/issues/FOLIO-4016 "Archive mod-spring-sample"
      • TAMU can hopefully handle this... keep it here as a reminder.
    • Chris Rutledge followed up on this, the older dockerfiles with vulnerabilities in mod-camunda and mod-workflow will not be used starting from TAMU's next upgrade. Kevin Day is working on this.
      • The dockerfile with these vulnerabilities will go away, but mod-camunda and mod-workflow are both being actively developed and will eventually be submitted for TC approval.
    • Julian already marked these as "ignore" in Snyk since the dockerfiles include an apt-get update.
  • CVE-2024-37371 and others in Dockerfile - need a story to investigate/resolve the critical vulnerabilities in the following dockerfiles:
    • mod-z3950
    • Enable "Status → Ignored" to see the reason why the vulns have been ignored.
    • dockerfiles include an apt-get update, so this shouldn't be an issue.
  • TODO application-builder - a critical vulnerability related to Babel/Traverse should be upgraded.
    • Craig McNally will create an issue and follow-up with Eureka on this one.
• mod-reporting has 5 critical issues
  • Uses Go language
  • TC has not officially decided if FOLIO will support Go language
  • Would need for Go language to be approved and mod-reporting needs to be approved by TC to be included in Sunflower release
  • Other modules that are used in production are higher priority to address
• mod-graphql has 1 critical issue
  • Mike Taylor is the owner. Need to reach out to see if he can fix the issue. If he is not available, need to go through TC. MODGQL-160 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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.