...
| Jira No | Summary | Description | Status | Solution | Securing connection between the Helm Client and Remote Helm Repository (Ramesh/Liam)a subject name | Helm charts to be held locally and these are the only repos you can pull HELM charts from. Connection authentication services (option 1 and 4) and (option 2 and 3) configurability of destination supported, like a white list. Those 2 layers of security are a better option than single one of them. Use of HTTPS = authenticated repo that HELM chart would be pulled (consumed). Once authenticated restrictions apply while K8s pulling from repo. Client needs to authenticate the repo that is pulling from. Service mesh can handle secure communication and authentication and authorization policies. Begin with HTTPs connection. From the subject field from the repo would have a subject name that would be validated against white list. So first autheticate (HTTPs) and then authorize (white list). It is also crucial to ensure that to push HELM chart to the repo is under control (authentication and authorization. 2 way TLS: client doing a POST would be authenticated by the repo and authorization at the repo level would have to be done based on the subject field of the cert that was passed by the client. Mutual TLS enablement to standard client side. | ongoing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Need to address 2 points to avoid supply chain substitution attack:
| Security improvements in ONAP recognized by LFN Governance Board. Big thanks and kudos to SECCOM team, PTLs and all contributors! Over 7000 vulns fixed! https://security.lfx.linuxfoundation.org/#/ Majority (over 99%) discovered with NEXUS-IQ scans, none? raised by end user. Documented process: ONAP Vulnerability Management | |||||||||
| Process for Security review question for the period of last 5 years | Scope to be proposed by Tony and Muddasar (with wider E2E coverage). NIST proposal that needs to be reviewed: https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-53a/rev-5/final | started | Next discussion in 2 weeks time frame. Pawel to recheck with Catherine for her feedback. | |||||||
https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/plugins/servlet/theme/portal/2/IT-23423 | Log4j upgrade | Log4j Target version 2.17.1 was released. It provides a fix for a vulnerability: https://cvelogging.mitreapache.org/cgi-binlog4j/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-44832.2.x/changes-report.html#a2.17.1 Following tickets opened:
| ongoing | To check with Jess statuses of the tickets that were recently closed. CLM scans per each project to be done by 4th of February. | ||||||
| Update of https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-security/members - updated list | List of the participants to be was updated with Maggie. Krzysztof was removed. | done | Still waiting for Krzysztof's feedback. | CVE creation for ONAP | Krzysztof proposed he will issue CVE for ONAP vulnerable to log4j release. | ongoing | Trying to reach out Krzysztof. If someone else knows the process, help is welcome (Muddasar might help as plan B). | |||
| Log4j CVEs | could be checked here: https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.logging.log4j/log4j-core | ongoing | Sonarcloud API documentation | Following our last discussion ticket was opened to LFN IT (https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/plugins/servlet/theme/portal/2/IT-23519 ) to get the SonarCloud updated API documentation | ongoing | Ticket to LFN IT to be commented by TonySBOM creation | Jess created a ticket whichis in progress but now occupied with Nexus3 issue. | ongoing | ||
| Security logging next steps | Bob presented phased approch for security logging which was consulted with SECCOM team. | ongoing | Meeting on Friday at 3 PM UTC to be organized by Amy to have a working group session with Fiachra, Toine, Sylvain. | |||||||
| ONAP quality gates | Quality asessment mainly for the submitted code (=delta)
| ongoing | Pawel to recheck with Seshu. Pawel to point Toine. | SBOM generation | ongoing | Link to be shared by Tony. no update | Waiting for a feedback from Seshu. | |||
SECCOM MEETING CALL WILL BE HELD ON 1st 8th OF FEBRUARY'22. | Security logging next steps - timeline Quality gates for code quality improvements - continuation of the discussion. SBOM next steps - status update with DCAE. |
Recording:
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SECCOM presentation:
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|