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

Tell users what to do if their scanners find issues in the image #37652

Conversation

potiuk
Copy link
Member

@potiuk potiuk commented Feb 23, 2024

We often get reports with results of the image scanning sent to the security team. However, for 3rd-party CVEs which are public, this is wrong way of reporting them and our users have other ways they can either handle it, or research it or contribute back their findings back and it's not clear for them that a) they have those options b) their expectations are that Airflow security team will tell them how to clear their security scan reports, c) they do not know they should (and can) contribute back.

This change restructures and clarifies the chapter that was describing it in a pretty vague way - turning it into "How to" guide for the users, explaining all the options they have and explaining what are the ways they can contribute back - also making it crystal clear what is the responsibility of the security team for it and that the community expects contributions in such cases from commercial users who want their security reports cleared, not the other way round.


^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

@boring-cyborg boring-cyborg bot added area:production-image Production image improvements and fixes kind:documentation labels Feb 23, 2024
@potiuk potiuk force-pushed the describe-better-the-process-for-users-for-vulnerabilties branch from bd76278 to 3cfa4eb Compare February 23, 2024 11:34
@potiuk potiuk requested a review from kaxil as a code owner February 23, 2024 11:34
@potiuk potiuk force-pushed the describe-better-the-process-for-users-for-vulnerabilties branch 2 times, most recently from 49c1c7a to 3729ab2 Compare February 23, 2024 11:38
We often get reports with results of the image scanning sent to
the security team. However, for 3rd-party CVEs which are public,
this is wrong way of reporting them and our users have other ways
they can either handle it, or research it or contribute back their
findings back and it's not clear for them that a) they have those
options b) their expectations are that Airflow security team will
tell them how to clear their security scan reports, c) they do not
know they should (and can) contribute back.

This change restructures and clarifies the chapter that was describing
it in a pretty vague way - turning it into "How to" guide for the
users, explaining all the options they have and explaining what are
the ways they can contribute back - also making it crystal clear
what is the responsibility of the security team for it and that
the community expects contributions in such cases from commercial
users who want their security reports cleared, not the other way
round.
@potiuk potiuk force-pushed the describe-better-the-process-for-users-for-vulnerabilties branch from 3729ab2 to 4532a8f Compare February 23, 2024 11:39
@potiuk potiuk added this to the Airflow 2.8.3 milestone Feb 23, 2024
@potiuk potiuk merged commit 6a707e3 into apache:main Feb 23, 2024
56 checks passed
@potiuk potiuk deleted the describe-better-the-process-for-users-for-vulnerabilties branch February 23, 2024 18:19
Copy link
Member

@raboof raboof left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great to write this down in such detail! I added a few tiny linguistic remarks.

vulnerabilities in one email - those are rejected immediately, as they make the process of handling the issue
way harder for everyone, including the reporters.

Also DO NOT open aa GitHub Issue with the scan results and asking what to do. The GitHub Issues are for
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

aa->a

vulnerability, it does not mean that it can be exploited in Airflow (or specifically in the way you are
using Airflow). If you do have a reproducible scenario how a vulnerability can be exploited in Airflow, you should -
of course - privately report it to the security team. But if you do not have reproducible
scenario, please make a research and try to understand the impact of the vulnerability on Airflow. That
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

make a -> do some

could be a fantastic contribution to the community and way to give back to the project that your company uses
for free.

You are free to discuss it publicly, open a `Github Discussion <https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions>`_
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Github -> GitHub

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Feb 26, 2024

Fixes in #37714

abhishekbhakat pushed a commit to abhishekbhakat/my_airflow that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2024
…che#37652)

We often get reports with results of the image scanning sent to
the security team. However, for 3rd-party CVEs which are public,
this is wrong way of reporting them and our users have other ways
they can either handle it, or research it or contribute back their
findings back and it's not clear for them that a) they have those
options b) their expectations are that Airflow security team will
tell them how to clear their security scan reports, c) they do not
know they should (and can) contribute back.

This change restructures and clarifies the chapter that was describing
it in a pretty vague way - turning it into "How to" guide for the
users, explaining all the options they have and explaining what are
the ways they can contribute back - also making it crystal clear
what is the responsibility of the security team for it and that
the community expects contributions in such cases from commercial
users who want their security reports cleared, not the other way
round.
@ephraimbuddy ephraimbuddy added the type:doc-only Changelog: Doc Only label Mar 6, 2024
ephraimbuddy pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2024
)

We often get reports with results of the image scanning sent to
the security team. However, for 3rd-party CVEs which are public,
this is wrong way of reporting them and our users have other ways
they can either handle it, or research it or contribute back their
findings back and it's not clear for them that a) they have those
options b) their expectations are that Airflow security team will
tell them how to clear their security scan reports, c) they do not
know they should (and can) contribute back.

This change restructures and clarifies the chapter that was describing
it in a pretty vague way - turning it into "How to" guide for the
users, explaining all the options they have and explaining what are
the ways they can contribute back - also making it crystal clear
what is the responsibility of the security team for it and that
the community expects contributions in such cases from commercial
users who want their security reports cleared, not the other way
round.

(cherry picked from commit 6a707e3)
@ephraimbuddy ephraimbuddy removed this from the Airflow 2.8.3 milestone Mar 7, 2024
jedcunningham pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2024
)

We often get reports with results of the image scanning sent to
the security team. However, for 3rd-party CVEs which are public,
this is wrong way of reporting them and our users have other ways
they can either handle it, or research it or contribute back their
findings back and it's not clear for them that a) they have those
options b) their expectations are that Airflow security team will
tell them how to clear their security scan reports, c) they do not
know they should (and can) contribute back.

This change restructures and clarifies the chapter that was describing
it in a pretty vague way - turning it into "How to" guide for the
users, explaining all the options they have and explaining what are
the ways they can contribute back - also making it crystal clear
what is the responsibility of the security team for it and that
the community expects contributions in such cases from commercial
users who want their security reports cleared, not the other way
round.

(cherry picked from commit 6a707e3)
utkarsharma2 pushed a commit to astronomer/airflow that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2024
…che#37652)

We often get reports with results of the image scanning sent to
the security team. However, for 3rd-party CVEs which are public,
this is wrong way of reporting them and our users have other ways
they can either handle it, or research it or contribute back their
findings back and it's not clear for them that a) they have those
options b) their expectations are that Airflow security team will
tell them how to clear their security scan reports, c) they do not
know they should (and can) contribute back.

This change restructures and clarifies the chapter that was describing
it in a pretty vague way - turning it into "How to" guide for the
users, explaining all the options they have and explaining what are
the ways they can contribute back - also making it crystal clear
what is the responsibility of the security team for it and that
the community expects contributions in such cases from commercial
users who want their security reports cleared, not the other way
round.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:production-image Production image improvements and fixes kind:documentation type:doc-only Changelog: Doc Only
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants