/
2025-02-27 Meeting notes

2025-02-27 Meeting notes

Date

Attendees

NamePresentPlanned Absences
Yes
Yes


Yes
Yes


Yes


Kevin DayYes
Jens HeinrichYes
Tom Gorman 
Out for a couple weeks

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 min FOLIO-4130 - Getting issue details... STATUS 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?

  • PTF / Devops have the ball here.
*

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

Under Review Filter:  Getting issues...

New Board

Team

Previous:

  • Security board
    • It may be helpful to ask for a new status (similar to "Open") so we can differentiate from "Open" used by dev teams
    • If we want to go this way a request can be made in #olf-infra.
    • We should consider the other option - using two boards:
      • One for SECURITY issues, another for all other issues.
    • Suggestion:  Let's give the two board approach a try, and if we decide it's not working for us, then we can look into the unified board (request a new status, etc.)
  • OpenSSH / MitM 
    • SECURITY issue has been created - see SECURITY-263 - Getting issue details... STATUS
    • Need another SECURITY issue to fix the implementation to check the host identity
    • Consider using the new "security preparedness" label.

Today:

  • Grails 7 upgrade - Julian will meet with K-int next week, and micronaut will be discussed.  SECURITY-171 - Getting issue details... STATUS
    • Julian will report final outcome next week.
Topic Backlog
0 minJira Group and Security Level reviewTeam

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.
  • ActionCraig 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?
Time permittingAdvice for handling of sensitive banking informationTeam

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.  

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

Due to some absences on different reasons the group stalled. Axel will try to reactivate the group.

Action items

  •  



Related content