2025-02-06 Meeting notes

@Craig McNally 

@Julian Ladisch 

2025-02-13

@Axel Dörrer 

@Ryan Berger (Deactivated) 

@Chris Rutledge 

@Jakub Skoczen 

@John Coburn 

@Skott Klebe 

@Kevin Day

@Jens Heinrich

2/6

@Tom Gorman 

2/6

0  min

Okapi Debian Package https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/FOLIO-3896

Team

• 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

NOTE:  With Ramsons GA coming soon, I bubbled this up from the topic backlog so we don't forget about it.   

1 min

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/FOLIO-4130

Team

Martin (PTF) responded that they do not use this.  It can be archived.  What are the next steps?  Are we asking PTF to archive?  Is this something we will act on?  DevOps?

5 min

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/MODAT-172

Team

Looks like the PR was merged.  Anything else we need to do here?

• Mark as security-reviewed?

• Is there an issue in the SECURITY project related to this?  I don't see one linked.  NO

• Has already been released and will be part of the QCSPs

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:

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.

• 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

• 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?

*

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

Under Review Filter: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/issues/?jql=filter%3D12879+

New Board

Team

Previous:

• Discussed https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/MODAT-172.  Needs further discussion in slack.  Revisit next week? DONE.  See agenda item for next steps above.

• @Craig McNally to provide Tom with a link to the CSP process documentation. DONE

Today:

• @Craig McNally to bring https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/SECURITY-218 to the Eureka team and will create JIRAs (Spikes/stories/documentation work/etc.) if needed.

  • Still outstanding.  Eureka is busy with Ramsons bug fixes.  Check in on this next week.

• I think we need to request QCSP10 approval for: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/SECURITY-230/https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/MODCONSKC-59

  • The community has not adopted Eureka in Q, and hasn't been tracking Eureka stuff in QCSPs.

    • @Craig McNally to take this to FSE.  We should ensure that this is included when QCSP10 is rolled out to LoC.  Sort of an unofficial addition to the community CSP.

• edge-sip2 - needs security review so it can be approved for QCSP10/RCSP1

Time permitting

Advice for handling of sensitive banking information

Team

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.

• 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.