Skip to content
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

Add in new object storage controls on encryption for impact and replication to untrusted destinations #305

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 29, 2024

Conversation

mlysaght2017
Copy link
Contributor

Need to work on tests, but would like to get to initial feedback on control objectives first

@mlysaght2017
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nas-hub @rowan-baker - can you please take a look at these two proposed controls


The following validations must be performed against corresponding Control Implementation capabilities to ensure the Control Objective is thoroughly assessed:

1. [**CCC.OS.C8.TR01**]{#CCC.OS.C8.TR.01}: Verify that access policies for cloud storage buckets and objects prevent requests with untrusted KMS keys.
Copy link
Contributor

@nas-hub nas-hub Aug 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Assuming untrusted KMS keys here refer to keys in non prod environments or keys in cloud tenants/projects that have Chinese-wall around it. The actual test will be, while configuring the cloud storage with corresponding key store, to check is the provided key store meets rules like same environment, project, folder etc.


1. [**CCC.OS.C8.TR01**]{#CCC.OS.C8.TR.01}: Verify that access policies for cloud storage buckets and objects prevent requests with untrusted KMS keys.

## CCC.OS.C9: Prevent Replication to Untrusted Destinations
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How can we define Untrusted destinations: Will this be a list of Services, list of geographies, list of thirdparties etc. If it is geographies then there is a scope to merge this with C7, where in we can expand C7 to include backups to be also blocked in restricted regions and zones.

We need to define "Untrusted Destinations"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thinking here is that untrusted destinations (resources) are any that exist outside of a defined identity/network perimeter (e.g.) at the organization level. E.g. if targeted destination/resource is not within a member project/account/subscription within the org, then deny.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got it, we may need to have a glossary of terms we use in CCC and define its scope. Or probably just qualify the untrusted destination further contracting it with Trusted Identity Perimeter, Truster Network Perimeter similar to the term Trusted Computing Base defined in NIST/ISC2.

The control and testing requirement LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@eddie-knight eddie-knight left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[will add note later]

@mlysaght2017 mlysaght2017 removed the request for review from rowan-baker August 28, 2024 09:29
@mlysaght2017
Copy link
Contributor Author

@damienjburks @eddie-knight can you please review/approve if you haven't already - I've just added in an extra line of detail on what we mean by untrusted resource/untrusted perimeters based on feedback from @nas-hub

Copy link
Contributor

@damienjburks damienjburks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! 🚀

@eddie-knight eddie-knight merged commit 0212256 into finos:main Aug 29, 2024
2 of 4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants