add control C-0272 - Workload with administrative roles

[YiscahLevySilas1]

User description

Overview

---

Type

enhancement, documentation

---

Description

• Introduced a new control (C-0272) to identify workloads with administrative roles, including detailed description and remediation.
• Added Rego policies (filter.rego and raw.rego) for detecting workloads that mount service account tokens by default and have administrative roles.
• Provided rule metadata (rule.metadata.json) specifying the rule's application scope and language.
• Included test cases for both failing and passing scenarios to validate the new control and Rego policies.

---

Changes walkthrough

	Relevant files
Enhancement	C-0272-workloadwithadministrativeroles.json New Control Definition for Workloads with Administrative Roles controls/C-0272-workloadwithadministrativeroles.json Introduced a new control definition for identifying workloads with administrative roles. Detailed description and remediation guidelines provided. Specifies the control ID, base score, category, and scanning scope. +22/-0    filter.rego Rego Policy for Identifying Workloads Mounting Service Account Tokens rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/filter.rego Defines a Rego policy to identify workloads mounting service account tokens by default. Utilizes helper function to determine the start of the path based on workload kind. +32/-0    raw.rego Detailed Rego Policy for Workloads with Administrative Roles rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/raw.rego Comprehensive Rego policy to identify workloads with administrative roles. Checks for service account token mounting and administrative role bindings. Includes logic to handle different kinds of Kubernetes workloads. +129/-0  rule.metadata.json Metadata for New Rule on Workloads with Administrative Roles rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/rule.metadata.json Metadata for the new rule including name, attributes, and match criteria. Specifies the rule language as Rego and the API objects it applies to. +63/-0
Tests	expected.json Failing Test Case Expected Output for Administrative Role Assignment rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/test/fail-wl-creates-pod/expected.json Expected output for a failing test case where a workload creates a pod with administrative roles. +110/-0  expected.json Passing Test Case Expected Output for Limited Permissions rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/test/pass-wl-limited-permissions/expected.json Expected output for a passing test case with limited permissions. +1/-0      expected.json Passing Test Case Expected Output for Not Mounting Service Account Token rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/test/pass-wl-not-mount-sa-token/expected.json Expected output for a passing test case where a workload does not mount a service account token. +1/-0      expected.json Passing Test Case Expected Output for Role Binding              rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/test/pass-wl-rolebinding/expected.json Expected output for a passing test case with a role binding. +1/-0

---

✨ PR-Agent usage:
Comment /help on the PR to get a list of all available PR-Agent tools and their descriptions

[codiumai-pr-agent]

PR Description updated to latest commit (8b49e80)

[codiumai-pr-agent]

PR Review

⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]	4, because the PR introduces a new security control, Rego policies, and includes multiple test cases. The complexity of Rego policies and the need to understand the security implications require a detailed review.
🧪 Relevant tests	Yes
🔍 Possible issues	The Rego policy might produce false positives if there are legitimate use cases for workloads to have administrative roles, though this seems to be handled by checking for specific conditions.
	The alert message in filter.rego and raw.rego uses a static alert score of 9, which might not be appropriate for all contexts. Consider making the alert severity dynamic based on the environment or specific conditions.
	The is_administrative_role function in raw.rego checks for administrative roles based on the presence of wildcards in apiGroups, resources, and verbs. This approach might miss more nuanced administrative permissions that do not use wildcards but still grant extensive privileges.
🔒 Security concerns	No

---

✨ Review tool usage guide:

---

Overview:
The review tool scans the PR code changes, and generates a PR review. The tool can be triggered automatically every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on any PR.
When commenting, to edit configurations related to the review tool (pr_reviewer section), use the following template:

/review --pr_reviewer.some_config1=... --pr_reviewer.some_config2=...

With a configuration file, use the following template:

[pr_reviewer]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

Utilizing extra instructions The review tool can be configured with extra instructions, which can be used to guide the model to a feedback tailored to the needs of your project. Be specific, clear, and concise in the instructions. With extra instructions, you are the prompter. Specify the relevant sub-tool, and the relevant aspects of the PR that you want to emphasize. Examples for extra instructions: [pr_reviewer] # /review # extra_instructions=""" In the 'possible issues' section, emphasize the following: - Does the code logic cover relevant edge cases? - Is the code logic clear and easy to understand? - Is the code logic efficient? ... """ Use triple quotes to write multi-line instructions. Use bullet points to make the instructions more readable.

How to enable\disable automation When you first install PR-Agent app, the default mode for the review tool is: pr_commands = ["/review", ...] meaning the review tool will run automatically on every PR, with the default configuration. Edit this field to enable/disable the tool, or to change the used configurations

Auto-labels The review tool can auto-generate two specific types of labels for a PR: a possible security issue label, that detects possible security issues (enable_review_labels_security flag) a Review effort [1-5]: x label, where x is the estimated effort to review the PR (enable_review_labels_effort flag)

Extra sub-tools The review tool provides a collection of possible feedbacks about a PR. It is recommended to review the possible options, and choose the ones relevant for your use case. Some of the feature that are disabled by default are quite useful, and should be considered for enabling. For example: require_score_review, require_soc2_ticket, and more.

Auto-approve PRs By invoking: /review auto_approve The tool will automatically approve the PR, and add a comment with the approval. To ensure safety, the auto-approval feature is disabled by default. To enable auto-approval, you need to actively set in a pre-defined configuration file the following: [pr_reviewer] enable_auto_approval = true (this specific flag cannot be set with a command line argument, only in the configuration file, committed to the repository) You can also enable auto-approval only if the PR meets certain requirements, such as that the estimated_review_effort is equal or below a certain threshold, by adjusting the flag: [pr_reviewer] maximal_review_effort = 5

More PR-Agent commands To invoke the PR-Agent, add a comment using one of the following commands: /review: Request a review of your Pull Request. /describe: Update the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR. /improve [--extended]: Suggest code improvements. Extended mode provides a higher quality feedback. /ask <QUESTION>: Ask a question about the PR. /update_changelog: Update the changelog based on the PR's contents. /add_docs 💎: Generate docstring for new components introduced in the PR. /generate_labels 💎: Generate labels for the PR based on the PR's contents. /analyze 💎: Automatically analyzes the PR, and presents changes walkthrough for each component. See the tools guide for more details. To list the possible configuration parameters, add a /config comment.

See the review usage page for a comprehensive guide on using this tool.

[codiumai-pr-agent]

PR Code Suggestions

Category	Suggestions
Maintainability	Consolidate multiple function definitions into a single function using else statements for clarity. Consider consolidating the get_beginning_of_path function definitions into a single function using an else statement for clarity and maintainability. rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/filter.rego [18-32] get_beginning_of_path(workload) = start_of_path { spec_template_spec_patterns := {"Deployment","ReplicaSet","DaemonSet","StatefulSet","Job"} spec_template_spec_patterns[workload.kind] start_of_path := ["spec", "template", "spec"] -} -... -get_beginning_of_path(workload) = start_of_path { +} else = start_of_path { + workload.kind == "Pod" + start_of_path := ["spec"] +} else = start_of_path { workload.kind == "CronJob" start_of_path := ["spec", "jobTemplate", "spec", "template", "spec"] }
	Extract logic into a function for better maintainability. To enhance code maintainability, consider extracting the logic for checking if a service account has administrative roles into a separate function. rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/raw.rego [18-28] +has_administrative_roles(sa) { + role := input[_] + role.kind in ["Role", "ClusterRole"] + is_administrative_role(role) + ... +} +... # check if sa has administrative roles -role := input[_] -role.kind in ["Role", "ClusterRole"] -is_administrative_role(role) -... +has_administrative_roles(sa)
Readability	Use more descriptive variable names for clarity. To improve code readability and maintainability, consider using a more descriptive variable name than msga for the deny message structure. rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/raw.rego [5-51] -deny[msga] { +deny[denyMessage] { ... - msga := { + denyMessage := { "alertMessage": sprintf("%v: %v in the following namespace: %v has administrative roles", [wl.kind, wl.metadata.name, wl.metadata.namespace]), ... } }
	Use descriptive variable names for better readability. Use a more descriptive variable name than wl for workloads to improve code readability. rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/raw.rego [6-8] -wl := input[_] -start_of_path := get_start_of_path(wl) -wl_spec := object.get(wl, start_of_path, []) +workload := input[_] +start_of_path := get_start_of_path(workload) +workload_spec := object.get(workload, start_of_path, []) ...
Best practice	Replace magic numbers with named constants for clarity and maintainability. Avoid using magic numbers directly in the code. Define a constant for the alert score value to improve code readability and maintainability. rules/workload-with-administrative-roles/raw.rego [36] -"alertScore": 9, +const alertScore = 9 +... +"alertScore": alertScore,

---

✨ Improve tool usage guide:

---

Overview:
The improve tool scans the PR code changes, and automatically generates suggestions for improving the PR code. The tool can be triggered automatically every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on a PR.
When commenting, to edit configurations related to the improve tool (pr_code_suggestions section), use the following template:

/improve --pr_code_suggestions.some_config1=... --pr_code_suggestions.some_config2=...

With a configuration file, use the following template:

[pr_code_suggestions]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

Enabling\disabling automation When you first install the app, the default mode for the improve tool is: pr_commands = ["/improve --pr_code_suggestions.summarize=true", ...] meaning the improve tool will run automatically on every PR, with summarization enabled. Delete this line to disable the tool from running automatically.

Utilizing extra instructions Extra instructions are very important for the improve tool, since they enable to guide the model to suggestions that are more relevant to the specific needs of the project. Be specific, clear, and concise in the instructions. With extra instructions, you are the prompter. Specify relevant aspects that you want the model to focus on. Examples for extra instructions: [pr_code_suggestions] # /improve # extra_instructions=""" Emphasize the following aspects: - Does the code logic cover relevant edge cases? - Is the code logic clear and easy to understand? - Is the code logic efficient? ... """ Use triple quotes to write multi-line instructions. Use bullet points to make the instructions more readable.

A note on code suggestions quality While the current AI for code is getting better and better (GPT-4), it's not flawless. Not all the suggestions will be perfect, and a user should not accept all of them automatically. Suggestions are not meant to be simplistic. Instead, they aim to give deep feedback and raise questions, ideas and thoughts to the user, who can then use his judgment, experience, and understanding of the code base. Recommended to use the 'extra_instructions' field to guide the model to suggestions that are more relevant to the specific needs of the project, or use the custom suggestions 💎 tool With large PRs, best quality will be obtained by using 'improve --extended' mode.

More PR-Agent commands To invoke the PR-Agent, add a comment using one of the following commands: /review: Request a review of your Pull Request. /describe: Update the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR. /improve [--extended]: Suggest code improvements. Extended mode provides a higher quality feedback. /ask <QUESTION>: Ask a question about the PR. /update_changelog: Update the changelog based on the PR's contents. /add_docs 💎: Generate docstring for new components introduced in the PR. /generate_labels 💎: Generate labels for the PR based on the PR's contents. /analyze 💎: Automatically analyzes the PR, and presents changes walkthrough for each component. See the tools guide for more details. To list the possible configuration parameters, add a /config comment.

See the improve usage page for a more comprehensive guide on using this tool.

[github-actions]

Summary:

• License scan: failure
• Credentials scan: failure
• Vulnerabilities scan: failure
• Unit test: success
• Go linting: success