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

secscan: add support for new enrichment type (PROJQUAY-5981) #2235

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

crozzy
Copy link
Contributor

@crozzy crozzy commented Sep 14, 2023

This change adds the ability for Quay to reason with the rhcc-enrichment that Clair will return in the vulnerability reports. This information is meant to allow users or applications to determine which packages come from rhcc layers.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 14, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Files Coverage Δ
data/secscan_model/secscan_v4_model.py 70.54% <14.28%> (+1.06%) ⬆️

... and 34 files with indirect coverage changes

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!.

@crozzy crozzy force-pushed the support-for-rhcc-enrichments branch 3 times, most recently from ce6a229 to 835dcd9 Compare October 12, 2023 18:28
This change adds the ability for Quay to reason with the
rhcc-enrichment that Clair will return in the vulnerability reports.
This information is meant to allow users or applications to determine
which packages come from rhcc layers.

Signed-off-by: crozzy <joseph.crosland@gmail.com>
@crozzy crozzy force-pushed the support-for-rhcc-enrichments branch from 835dcd9 to 10a3402 Compare October 12, 2023 18:30
@crozzy
Copy link
Contributor Author

crozzy commented Oct 12, 2023

@hdonnay at the moment this ignores vulnerabilities that come from layers with an rhcc package except vulnerabilities directly related to the rhcc package. Do you think that is the desired behaviour? I'm not sure if we also want to include other vulnerabilities as well.

@hdonnay
Copy link
Member

hdonnay commented Oct 13, 2023

I think that's right, but we should engage with stakeholders and drive a consensus.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants