Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device.
Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
For now the STSH headers are just being stripped. We can revisit later.
Today:
PR has been approved, just needs to be merged
0 min
Jira Group and Security Level review
Team
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:
Add descriptions to each of the security groups, like we have for "FOLIO Security Group"
Maybe add a new security group and level for FOLIO devops
Review membership of each of these groups and remove users no longer on the project
Review the Security Level -> Group mappings. Some of these don't look quite right to me.
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:
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.
Next Steps:
Clearly define/formalize the various classes
Come up with concrete examples of each class
Build out guidance
Come up with concrete examples of how to protect each class of data.
Consider storing some classes of data outside of postgres altogether - e.g. in secret storage.
What would be the guidance we provide to teams for this so we don't end up with each team doing things differently?
SecretStore interface and existing implementations are currently only read-only. They would need to be extended to allow for creation/mgmt of this information.
Craig to start a conversation in slack about this.
Seeking a volunteer to generate a draft document for us to review at a later meeting.
Today:
@Axel Dörrer to do a first draft as a base for further discussions
Status on pentesting works within Network traffic control group
@Axel Dörrer
Due to some absences on different reasons the group stalled. Axel will try to reactivate the group.