2025-02-13 Meeting notes

Craig McNally 

Axel Dörrer 

Chris Rutledge 

Jakub Skoczen 

Skott Klebe 

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:  Getting issues...

New Board

Previous:

• Craig McNally to bring SECURITY-218 - Getting issue details... STATUS to the Eureka team and will create JIRAs (Spikes/stories/documentation work/etc.) if needed.
  • Still outstanding.  Eureka is busy with high priority work.  Check in on this next week.
• I think we need to request QCSP10 approval for: SECURITY-230 - Getting issue details... STATUS / MODCONSKC-59 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • 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.
    • I've raised awareness of this with Eureka/FSE.
• edge-sip2 - needs security review so it can be approved for QCSP10/RCSP1
  • CSP approval has been requested, awaiting one more approval.

Today:

• The security board is a little confusing because the columns are based on the ticket status.  For SECURITY issues it's not a problem since we control the statuses of those.  For other issues we need a better way to track these on our board.
  • Idea:  To introduce automation into Jira which will automatically create SECURITY issues in the following situations:
    • tagged as security
    • not already linked to a SECURITY issue
  • Idea:  Handle this on our side as part of the triage process.
    • During initial review, decide if we need to create a SECURITY issue, and do so if needed.
    • Use separate boards for SECURITY and issues in other projects.
  • Idea:  Adjust the columns in the board to have separate "inbox" buckets for review:  SECURITY and non-SECURITY
    • Jens Heinrich will experiment with board adjustments

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.