-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.6k
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
Blog: Current State of 2019 Third Party Kubernetes Audit #36971
Blog: Current State of 2019 Third Party Kubernetes Audit #36971
Conversation
e5c91f7
to
c05a8b7
Compare
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
praise: This looks really good to me! I like how concise it is, and how it makes it easy to identify places for contributing. idea: There is a small summary in the findings - is it worth including it?
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the ping on this! I'm excited to see this call to action on these. This is really great work from you all updating the status and to see the progress that's been made. When this is published would it be helpful to update the original tracking issue with these statuses as well?
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Initial set of reviews
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-03-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@cailynse Thanks for the praise. About the idea, I worry that reiterating the summary from the report, would make people implicitly believe that the summary has not changed over the years and may cause confusion. |
e9dbda6
to
b01fee7
Compare
@cji thanks for the feedback! I think adding a blog post link at the top of the original issue description, would be good enough, imo :) |
b01fee7
to
6898ab3
Compare
For publication date, could I suggest 2022-10-05 (or, if it looks like it won't be ready on time: later) |
@reylejano would that be okay with timelines for 2021-22 audit publication? (Want to publish this atleast a week before publication of the new audit) |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sftim The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-05-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-05-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-05-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
content/en/blog/_posts/2022-10-05-current-state-2019-third-party-audit.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Thanks you all for the feedback while I was away. Incoming - a bunch of changes based on feedback so far! |
Update: I have no wifi unfortunately on my plane. So gonna have to push changes later in the afternoon today. I think we should still be on track for Oct 5 publication |
/hold It's OK to merge this even if some nit-level feedback is outstanding (in that case, please consider opening a follow-up PR). Would be good to get a formal comment from a reviewer representing SIG Security. |
bc0a5e3
to
6d26e5d
Compare
Apply suggestions from cji, divya-mohan0209, sftim, raesene, reylejano code reviews
6d26e5d
to
eef47e5
Compare
All comments should be addressed and resolved now. Would appreciate |
Thank you @PushkerJ for addressing comments |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 6f292f3a6f72882b076d7cd91a07896b3890c13b
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks really great! Thanks so much for putting this together and incorporating all the thoughtful feedback!
/lgtm
@PushkarJ: you cannot LGTM your own PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/hold cancel |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great stuff.
A few super minor things.
|
||
| **\#** | **Title** | **Issue** | **Status** | | ||
| ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ||
| 1 | hostPath PersistentVolumes enable PodSecurityPolicy bypass | [#81110](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/81110) | closed, addressed by [kubernetes/website#15756](https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/15756) | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💭 I think kubernetes/kubernetes#109798 (PSP removal) is also relevant here.
(something for a follow-up PR, perhaps?)
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------- | ---------- | -------------------- | | ||
| Kubernetes does not facilitate certificate revocation | [#81111](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/81111) | High | High | Medium | | ||
| Use of InsecureSkipVerify and other TLS weaknesses | [#81119](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/81119) | High | High | Medium | | ||
| Kubectl can cause a local Out Of Memory error with a malicious Pod specification | [#81123](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/81123) | Medium | Medium | Medium | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit / for feedback
I'd put:
| Kubectl can cause a local Out Of Memory error with a malicious Pod specification | [#81123](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/81123) | Medium | Medium | Medium | | |
| `kubectl` can cause a local Out Of Memory error with a malicious Pod specification | [#81123](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/81123) | Medium | Medium | Medium | |
We avoid capitalizing the names of commands, it verges on misleading the reader.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added this suggestion and previous suggestion in followup PR #37156
Fixes kubernetes/sig-security#56
Preview: https://deploy-preview-36971--kubernetes-io-main-staging.netlify.app/blog/2022/10/05/current-state-2019-third-party-audit/
/cc @raesene @cailynse @reylejano @cji
/sig security docs
/committee security-response