On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 16:54, Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@...> wrote:

Liz,
Love this. As part of the assessments SIG-Security performs, we've begun highlighting the importance of secure development practices. The last few assessments we've begun pushing more for this, as well as responsible disclosure instructions and general security mindedness for project sustainment. This fits in alignment with those efforts. We currently have the assessment process undergoing some updates (held currently for kubecon) and this make it a great time to potentially include this. I personally would like to see license dependencies and dependency trees to help push forward in the area of SBOM.
I think we should be clear however in what our thresholds and terms are in this area, offhand i can think of the following potentials:
* Listing of vulns in deliverable artifacts
* Listing licensing dependencies
* SBOM
* vulnerability threshold and prioritizing resolution in prior to artifact delivery
* vulnerability threshold and prioritizing resolution post artifact delivery

Definitely worth a conversation and follow-ups. Do you have anything in mind that are must haves off the above or anything I missed or misunderstood?

I'd be happy to join and help here.

HUGE DISCLAIMER. I work at Snyk, which is the service powering the
scans. I'm also a maintainer of Conftest as part of the Open Policy
Agent project and know a bunch of folks on here. I'm not trying to
sell you anything, other nice vendors exist, etc. I just happen to
have opinions and experience here.

The current numbers for a lot of our projects look really quite bad

This is nearly always the case when projects or company first look at
vulnerabilities. It's indicative of the problem domain more so than
projects doing the wrong thing. Fixing starts with visibility.

reviewing such a massive amount of data for project owners might take way too much time

The main thing to do is break the problem down. Luckily there are a
few things you can do here.

* As you note, starting with non-test dependencies is a good idea
* Then start with the most severe and those which can be fixed, and
repeat. Standards like CVSS exist, as well as more involved
vendor-specific mechanisms. CVSS is mainly simple to read on the
surface (Low 0.1 - 3.9, Medium 4.0 - 6.9, High 7.0 - 8.9, Critical 9.0
- 10.0)
* Each time you clear a new threshold, put in checks in CI to help
enforce things in the future

For instance:

* Start with Critical (CVSS 9+), non-test issues that have a fix available
* Add a CI check to break the build for CVSS 9+, non-test, fixable issues
* Do the same for 8+ non-test
* Do the same for 9+ test
...

etc.

In this way what seems an impossibly large bit of work gets broken
down and you get value quickly. You can absolutely do this at your own
pace. I wouldn't advocate for CNCF to set deadlines, though guidelines
and reporting for graduated projects might be useful.

Separately, you likely want to have some level of triage for
vulnerabilities that don't have fixes available yet. The above
approach is somewhat mechanical, triage needs more context and
security experience. I'd at least recommend having maintainers triage
Critical severity issues in dependencies. Assuming that's rare, you
can extend this as far as you like and have time to do (to High, or
Medium, or a specific CVSS threshold).

false positives from things like dependencies only used in test

I wouldn't think of test vulnerabilities as false positives, just
potential a different type of vulnerability. As one example,
compromised test vulnerabilities have the potential to steal build
credentials and suddenly someone is shipping a compromised version of
software to end users using your release toolchain.


I'm sure the above is obvious to some, but I thought it was worth
laying out. It should also be pretty tool agnostic.
As mentioned, happy to join conversations if folks are discussing.

Gareth

~Emily Fox
@TheMoxieFox


On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:41 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and SIG Security folks

On Friday I got a nice preview from Shubhra Kar and his team at the LF about some tools they are building to provide insights and stats for LF (and therefore CNCF) projects. One that's of particular interest is an integration of scanning security issues.

We require graduated projects to have security reviews, and SIG Security are offering additional assessments, but we don't really have any standards around whether project artifacts shipping with vulnerabilities. Should we have something in place for requiring projects to have a process to fix vulnerability issues (at least the serious ones)?

This tooling is off to a great start. The current numbers for a lot of our projects look really quite bad, but this may be to do with scanning all the repos related to a project's org. I'd imagine there are also some false positives from things like dependencies only used in test that don't affect the security of the executables that end users run - we may want to look at just reporting vulnerabilities from a project's deployable artifacts.

As well as vulnerability scanning this is showing license dependencies, which could be very useful.

For discussion, how we want to use this kind of info, and whether we want to formalize requirements on projects (e.g. at graduation or incubation levels).

Copying Shubra in case he would like to comment further. .

Enjoy KubeCon!
Liz

--
Gareth Rushgrove
@garethr

garethr.dev
devopsweekly.com