-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 513
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Security Pal for Self-Assessments Pilot #554
Comments
I'm a fan of getting security stuffs outside our bubble to non-infosec peeps, so count me in. :) |
Likewise, happy to help out however I can with this. |
Same here, but my vote still goes to Security Champions for the name of this program! =) |
Breaking things down in more detail, I guess what we need to cover...
I think we can figure this out on slack without a zoom call, but lemme know if desired @apmarshall / @magnologan @TheFoxAtWork - I'd suggest we pick 3 projects vs 2, then each of us can work with one... |
From ContainerD (emphasis mine): https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#security-advisors
So there's a slightly different focus here than what I think we're doing (which is helping sandbox projects start thinking through security and perform their own security self-assessments), but similar structure for the role (outside advisor, not necessarily a code contributor/reviewer, focused on security). Current list of ContainerD Security Advisors, if we want to follow up with them about their experience: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/SECURITY_ADVISORS |
@apmarshall concur - not quite the same thing. This to me is almost more of a welcoming committee - I sorta like the term "security buddy" as it sounds less formal, more friendly. This will probably be a new projects first interaction with this SIG, so important to start on the right foot, but get them to realize we care about appsec... |
Security Champion - Pretty common descriptor for an embedded security aware member of an existing team usually supported by an external security office or program. Not typically an outside advisor but rather an 'in-group' confidant and ...champion. Seems potentially clash-y with the use case here. Security Advisor - Generic enough to take on whatever role. Advisor typically does infer hands above rather than hands on. Security Buddy - I believe 'buddy' is not considered strictly gendered but in some places in the world it definitely leans that way in my experience (replacing mate or dude often). IMHO. Security Partner - This is defined within quite a few larger orgs (facebook, netflix etc) to indicate a liaison role between a specific BU or product and a broader governance and security assurance program. Different from Champion in that champion is usually an embedded role within a team (say agile) Security Pal - I wonder if Pal translates well to non-Germanic languages. It would probably be convered to "Friend" or equivalent. Not a downfall necessarily but maybe literally using "Friend" in english would make more sense. Advisor or Partner seem to be the most palatable idioms here to me :) |
@jlk can you list the pilot projects on the issue? |
I will like to be included in this as a security Pal for any upcoming projects...Please include me. |
Here's the projects we're working with at this time:
We've engaged with the four, and have initial positive interactions. As these teams are working on other things, it'll probably take a month or two to fully understand how things are working out. Will try to keep this updated along the way. @achetal01 I've added you to the #sig-security-secpals slack group. |
Thank you. Sure Lets sync up next week... |
(this started as a gist while I drafted thoughts over last month or so - moving here now as a thought Of Record) This is meant as an overview of the Security Pals project to help get people up to speed. GoalThis is a TAG Security pilot to smoothe the security aspects of onboarding a new CNCF project. The "security pals" Initial Projects
Results to dateKyverno's nearly complete in their self-assessment. Tinkerbell is moving in lurches. Argo just got added to the list recently - first meeting is first week of September. The others haven't had much traction yet - either due to TAG volunteers being busy, or projects not engaging really well. Probably the most common request was for templates/examples for some of the docs like security contacts, incident response etc. @TheFoxAtWork got some templates added in #733, and those seem to be getting well received. DiscussionInitial OutreachWhat seems to be working is just figure out where the project hangs out, and go say hi. Usually they have a slack channel or server somewhere - probably listed on their website. A slightly softer/friendlier version of "Hi! I'm from TAG Security, and I'm here to help!" seems to get met with surprised positive response. LearningsApproaching a project with an open-ended request doesn't seem to be getting much traction. I'm starting to think having a
To help with this, I think a few slides or doc of some type would be very useful to help communicate the ways we're open to engage (I'm avoiding the word "process"), as well as being a take-away for the project to look at after initial communication. I've got some ideas here, will try to get a draft together to test out on Argo, whom I'm engaging with over coming weeks. There's also value in having a doc (that one, or maybe separate) that guides the security pal through how to engage, questions to expect, example timelines, what's worked to-date, etc. This writeup's a step towards that... Another alternate idea would be for the pals to ask one question of the project every few days, gathering the info that way. But that puts a little more burden on the security pal, and I'm not sure that's where we want to go... There's a reference above to this process taking a "week or two." So far we're seeing months. That's a pretty significant difference, so there's opportunity for navel-gazing on how to improve focus on this. Teams are busy, the pals have their own thing going on - so while I don't want to walk into a meeting with a project with a structured timeline, some structure would help. So maybe part of that engagement is a frank communication on what works for both sides, along with executing well on the followups. Part of the problem here is we want to be friendly, the project contacts are either volunteers or have a dayjob. I suspect there's hesitancy in getting started, so just suggesting to start the assessment by filling what's known and then discussing the other bits might help. At least I've taken a "why don't you guys give it a read and let me know where I can assist" stance - that's welcomed, but perhaps "let's get on a call and go through this one by one, get the easy ones out of the way and let's see what's left" would accomplish more. Also, as these engagements drag out, pals lose interest or have other things going on. Having a more realistic timeline up front might help here, but also it might make sense to have more than 1 pal/contact from the TAG side. There's a nice/personable feel of having a single security buddy, but need to figure out not to let things fall through the cracks without prodding from TAG leadership... |
@jlk would you be able to talk through this in today's meeting if we don't have any other topics to cover? i'd like to crowdsource some next steps. |
sure |
Just had another good conversation on this with the TAG - I'd attach slides but it's all above. Notes from today's conversation below:
Going to sit on this feedback for a few days, then I guess open a Proposal for formal/ongoing Security Pals project, so should be able to close this issue within the next week. Thanks @achetal01, @anvega, @lumjjb, @PushkarJ (and others I might have missed - sorry!) for the feedback. |
I'm still waiting for feedback from the projects we reached out to in the pilot. My fault, as I was late in getting feedback requests out. Here's my thoughts for what a TAG Security Pal Program should look like:
I think the point above about a security roadmap/checklist for a project would help, but perhaps that should be on the landing page? Still waiting for feedback, but @TheFoxAtWork lemme know next steps here, if you want me to submit a proposal or whatnot (ping me on slack if easier). Guessing a proposal to formalize, then a PR for a page in the repo that describes the program, how to engage as a pal or project, etc. |
@jlk This looks good, open a PR with the formal process. and we'll need to create a new template just for these kinds of engagements. ( i think you can include the template as part of the PR though i'm not sure) |
@jlk i remembered that you had a retrospective + slides on this effort, would you be able to add these to the repo as a PR? Thanks. |
I think we can put this under |
This directory doesn't exist. Am I correct in assuming that this effort was abandoned? |
Not correct. I've been busy, plus holidays. Having to convert pptx over to markdown. Halfway done, will have PR in by next week. |
Description: Execute a pilot that introduces and encourages one or two projects to complete a self-assessment with a CNCF SIG-Security person assigned to walk them through and guide them on completing the self-assessment.
It is not intended to be a joint-evaluation, more to be as a touch point with security insights to guide projects in jump starting their security considerations for their software project.
Ideally we would select one or two projects that are not security focused (don't provide security in the ecosystem) that are very early in their maturity, sandbox preferred, to test this out with. At the end of this we want to capture:
ContainerD has a similar concept however it is more for day-to-day security advisement
Impact: We believe this will be immensely helpful for early maturity, non-security projects to begin thinking about and considering their security. The product of this also is an input to the joint-review under the Security Review Process.
Scope: We would need to research and select one or two projects, determine if they are amenable to trying this out, and then have them complete the self-assessment. Overall the assessment completion is relatively light-weight, and should take no more than a few hours, with overall commitment from the SIG-member to be about a week or two.
TO DO
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: