17:02:08 #startmeeting Security 17:02:08 Meeting started Thu Apr 23 17:02:08 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is hyakuhei. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:02:10 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:02:11 o/ 17:02:12 The meeting name has been set to 'security' 17:02:15 o/ 17:02:40 Agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/OpenStackSecurity 17:03:11 anything to add to that? 17:03:21 Bandit 17:03:54 Cool 17:04:13 So as I’ve found time I’ve been going through the wiki and updating links etc 17:04:27 I’m hoping for a concerted rebranding effort at the summit 17:05:30 o/ 17:05:31 cool, what do you need to make that happen? 17:05:45 People in the same place at the same time more than anything I thin 17:05:50 just a sprint of sorts 17:05:56 Figure out what needs rebranding, get everyone together in the security space, hack? 17:06:02 Yeah 17:06:16 We’ve got a few 1 hour boardrooms 17:06:32 hey tkelsey 17:06:52 Any questions or concerns re: our transition? 17:07:12 hey hyakuhei, yeah rebranding sounds like something that could be done in a sprint :) 17:07:50 Cool 17:07:57 ok, lets move swiftly along then :) 17:08:01 i didn't see it on the planning, but ossg is getting a sprint on friday? 17:08:21 I’m not putting anything in stone for Friday Afternoon 17:08:41 The summit is pretty much a ghost town on the final day 17:09:34 ack, thanks 17:10:00 Though I’m happy to use that time if people are around I don’t want to tell the organisers we want that space and then not fill it 17:10:15 I’m happy we got anything, being so late to the party :) 17:10:57 heh yeah 17:11:10 Ok, next up 17:11:22 #topic security.openstack.org 17:11:32 It would be nice to have some more content there before the summit 17:11:51 Suggestions? 17:12:12 I’d like to see developer guidance, sec guide links and OSSN on there perhaps? 17:12:26 ++ for developer guidance :D 17:12:31 the dev guide stuff we did could go up there 17:12:35 i think those all sound good 17:13:16 maybe we could just go with a landing page style content to start with, provide a nice central place for links to the other content? 17:13:24 maybe list security specific projects (Barbican, Anchor etc) and a general sort of resources area 17:13:37 just throwing out ideas 17:13:37 All good ideas 17:14:25 Cool, anything else? 17:14:28 oh hai gmurphy ! 17:14:36 maybe even have a "completeness" section, covering the state of the guide for the current release 17:14:42 We were just talking about uses for security.openstack.org 17:14:43 o/ 17:14:51 right. 17:14:51 As it might be nice to have more there before the summit 17:14:55 which isn’t so far away 17:15:12 but I don’t understand how/where to add content 17:15:20 yeah. i can probably help out with this next week. port the security guidelines etc 17:15:21 There’s a repo somewhere I think. 17:15:39 That would be great :) 17:15:41 so everything lives git.openstack.org/openstack/ossa 17:15:53 gmurphy: awesome :) 17:15:57 can submit reviews etc like anyt other project 17:16:07 nice 17:16:19 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/ossa,n,z 17:16:26 Thanks bknudson 17:16:35 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/ossa,n,z -- there wasn't anything open 17:16:56 if we can figure out how to post content, I dont mind trying to get the developer guidance on there before the summit 17:17:07 the reviews of ossas happen in the bug reports 17:17:07 I think tmcpeak should take a look at porting the developer guidelines over, as he has the bit between his teeth over that 17:17:22 Yeah, OSSA are special cases 17:17:25 ok.. I'll take a stab 17:17:53 i can help out with this. on a call atm ping me later ok? 17:18:04 cool, sounds good 17:18:05 will do, thanks gmurphy 17:18:08 hyakuhei ok I'll teflon that one off to travis 17:18:13 lol 17:18:18 thanks tmcpeak, dg_ can help :P 17:18:33 sweet! 17:18:49 tmcpeak I'll take the figurehead role, wave and stuff ;) 17:19:00 I expected nothing less :) 17:19:03 #action tmcpeak and dg_ to move developer guidance to the OSSA repo 17:19:12 There - it’s official now 17:19:29 lol 17:19:35 who's got +2 on the OSSA repo? 17:19:43 VMT I’m guessing 17:19:52 do they want to review all these? 17:20:21 Possibly not, fungi, gmurphy, ttx , tristanC ^ thoughts? 17:21:00 We want to move some more content, links into security.openstack.org but this might generate a bit more review traffic on the OSSA repo for a while... 17:21:13 side question, could we get gerrit output from the ossa repo to broadcast in openstack-security if it isn't alread? 17:21:17 good question... shouldn't this be links to already hosted document ? 17:21:38 Some of the documents have been waiting for a good home 17:21:45 I don't have a problem with them being in the same repo... maybe +2 for a larger group 17:21:49 Also, OSSN really should have some more prominence. 17:22:00 because well, the project is actually called ossa 17:22:06 Yeah it is 17:22:28 Though security.openstack.org should be more inclusive than just OSSA I think ? 17:22:38 yes! 17:22:59 I hope we can have more than just our dirty laundry there. 17:23:12 :) 17:23:30 I very much want it to be a good place for us to demonstrate all the good security stuff in OpenStack, including our robust OSSA process 17:24:23 +1 17:24:52 o/ 17:25:41 ok cool, no need to labor that, I’ll chat with the VMT folks about if security.openstack.org should stay under ossa in git (which I don’t personally have anything against) and if it does stay there, the impact of adding some +2’s for the additional content. 17:26:17 maybe just rename it someday 17:26:20 Doesn’t look like Mr Security Guide will be joining us 17:26:32 sicarie is absent! 17:26:43 tmcpeak: want to talk about bandit? 17:27:18 i think the doc update is similar to last meeting, we are still reviewing the chapters and sicarie has a list of things he'd like done before we go to publish. 17:27:19 hyakuhei: yep 17:27:23 fletcher: you around? 17:27:25 #topic Bandit 17:27:26 i am 17:27:36 fletcher: want to overview your new plugin really quick? 17:27:43 sure thing 17:27:49 bandit's been running quietly on keystone for a while now. 17:27:56 woot! 17:28:05 i basically hijacked all of Christian Heimes' work from defusedxml 17:28:10 I added the bandit gate to Anchor last week btw 17:28:23 bandit is also running quietly on the gate for barbican 17:28:28 sahara is working towards putting a bandit gate job in as well 17:28:32 +1 17:28:36 Wonderful! 17:28:41 awesome :D its spreading 17:28:41 So it flags all dangerous XML functions and recommends defusedxml library 17:28:46 although, we might have some feedback about the setup process ;) 17:28:48 thats awesome work! 17:28:56 fletcher: :) awesome 17:29:09 fletcher: have an example of a dangerous XML function? 17:29:15 yeah, so this is a really cool new test fletcher has added 17:29:21 elmiko: feedback is good :D 17:29:23 elmiko: feedback is good! 17:29:25 heh 17:29:29 there have been vulnerabilities for expansion and derefrencing before. 17:29:30 sure! 17:29:35 hehe, i figured you guys would be up for it 17:29:36 and he also added a supporting doc along with it, so IMO this is an excellent example for somebody to follow when adding a new plugin 17:29:42 xml.etree.ElementTree.parse() 17:29:51 #link https://review.openstack.org/176404 17:29:55 ^ fletcher's change 17:30:07 I can't parse an XML document? 17:30:24 bknudson: you can, you just might have a bad time :D 17:30:25 an untrusted XML document, no 17:30:27 that seems like a pretty basic thing to do. 17:30:41 things like the billion laughs attack 17:30:45 and expontential entity expantion 17:30:59 sorry, had stepped away 17:31:04 what's the fix? 17:31:09 (gawd I suck at typing/spelling) 17:31:14 (other than don't use XML) 17:31:21 there is a library which mitigates known attacks 17:31:28 used defusedxml.ElementTree.parse() 17:31:33 external entity injection 17:31:38 ahh 17:31:39 skimming briefly, i think we could move the non-ossa tooling and content out of the ossa repo and then just use the ossa repo for actual ossa yaml files 17:31:44 is it in global-requirements? 17:31:55 bknudson: good q 17:32:03 there is external entity injection and exponential entity injection 17:32:14 but yah, the defusedxml page has nice summaries 17:32:24 I did notice that Thierry Carrez is in the "thanked" section 17:32:27 i'm not sure about global-requirements 17:32:30 so this must be a known issue 17:32:51 it is not on global requirements 17:33:09 probably should look at getting it added 17:33:28 y, if any code does xml parsing 17:33:43 well xml parsing itself is ok, as long as it isn't from an untrusted srouce 17:33:44 we've been trying to get rid of xml support 17:33:59 still, it's hard to know 17:34:12 sorry had to reconnect so I dont' have scrollback. What's hard to know? 17:34:19 that's pretty much anywhere but a local config file... and some people don't even trust their config files. 17:34:30 yeah… good point 17:34:41 if people want to explicitly mark XML usage as trusted that's what #nosec is for 17:34:50 this is where the pinned bandit version is useful, as well as config / profiles functionality 17:35:05 and this ^ 17:35:08 we can push the test into master, run it across openstack repos, figure out what the overall landscape looks like.. 17:35:14 +1 17:35:19 there's always the argument of "why leave potentially vulnerable code around when the fix is known and simple" :) 17:35:30 .. then retain it / keep it / tweak it, and individual projects can still include or exclude the test in their gates based on their config 17:35:43 chair6: +1 17:35:46 fletcher: yeah agree, in OpenStack it might not be as simple because of global requirements and such, but this can at least be a nudge in the right direction 17:36:12 ah ok, that makes sense 17:36:18 also on bandit, there is a relatively significant change at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175612/ .. close to landing it, but feedback still requested 17:36:27 also fletcher: I think I'm going to add a reference to this commit as a best practice when committing plugins 17:36:43 :) 17:36:43 completes work that was discussed at the OSSG mid-cycle, moving to having tests report both a severity and a confidence level 17:36:47 among a few other things.. 17:36:50 awwwww, snap. i'll take it :) 17:37:06 yeah chair6 disappeared for a day and dropped a monster improvement :) 17:37:16 yah, i heart that diff 17:37:49 it might be interesting to have a config option to error if confidence level > whatever 17:37:56 in other Bandit news, Barbican has switched from experimental Bandit gate to non-voting 17:38:04 :) nice 17:38:17 bknudson: yeah, definitely planned 17:38:28 yeah, i haven't added it yet but we'll do filtering on confidence level 17:39:16 bknudson: you have any feel to when/if you guys (Keystone) will want to move to a voting gate? 17:39:32 I was hoping that we'd at least see a release of bandit 17:39:43 release? 17:39:50 so that we knew you guys weren't going to break us with each release. 17:39:56 hehe 17:39:59 we're done releasing for now :) 17:40:07 shouldn't matter anyway, you guys are pinned 17:40:18 * fletcher heading to another meeting. talk to everyone next week 17:40:21 I also want to see it in global-requirements. 17:40:23 fletcher: cool, thanks! 17:40:29 tmcpeak, when will projects start receiving automatic pushes for bandit-test-requirements.txt ? 17:40:32 and our own files updated. 17:40:34 back 17:40:43 i think we should do it as soon as we can; since it hasn't been an issue 17:40:45 I wouldn't be too worried about whether it's gating or not. 17:40:51 dave-mccowan: as soon as it gets in global-requirements… 17:41:05 bknudson: well if it isn't gating, it probably isn't actually accomplishing much 17:41:24 how often do people actually check all that stuff on the right side? ;) 17:41:37 I hope that core reviewers are always checking it. 17:41:39 I sure do. 17:41:47 bknudson: +1 17:41:49 yeah, i'd argue that non-voting is still quite useful 17:42:11 ok cool, apparently I'm the only one that developed a blind spot for gate jobs that don't reject my change :D 17:42:13 keystone isn't like other projects where they have failing CI all the time. 17:42:53 I'd be fine with making it voting. I can bring it up at the keystone meeting. 17:43:14 although I'd still like to see it in global-requirements first. 17:43:34 bknudson: yeah, makes sense :) — also I don't want to push you guys to have it voting if you aren't comfortable yet 17:43:40 bknudson, how is it installed now? 17:43:55 stevemar: it's in tox.ini deps for the bandit env 17:44:30 tmcpeak: Do a point release that doesn't break us and I'll be more comfortable. 17:44:55 bknudson: ok cool 17:45:01 bknudson: cautious is good :) 17:45:06 releasing often makes it easier on users. 17:45:07 we'll do a point release with fletcher's new plugin and chair6's change 17:45:28 that will be 0.10.2, and keystone should still use 0.10.1 because it's pinned that way 17:45:39 when all that works we can discuss again :) 17:45:49 then we can upgrade to 0.10.2 and make sure that process works. 17:46:20 bknudson: tmcpeak +1 good plan 17:46:23 which requires global-requirements. 17:46:45 bknudson: ok I'm a little confused.. why do you want to upgrade to 0.10.2? 17:47:00 I was envisioning just using 0.10.1 since it's stable 17:47:03 to pick up the new features. 17:47:29 isn't the point of pinning so you don't necessarily get them? :D 17:47:47 the point of pinning is that we get to choose when. 17:48:15 ok cool, I think I get it 17:48:20 if there's new features it should be 0.11.0 17:48:29 good point... 17:48:34 especially for a change as big as Jamie's 17:48:40 err chair6's 17:48:40 so I think bknudson is right with that approach, Bandit needs to do a second release to test the process, then if its looking good people can pull 0.10.2 or whatever 17:49:10 cool, works for me 17:49:15 that way Bandit can test out the process and consumers can get confidence that we know what we are doing :) 17:49:27 I wouldn't go that far :P 17:49:44 Can we wrap Bandit discussion or take it over to #openstack-security after this meeting (10 minutes left) ? 17:49:51 yep, think we're good 17:50:02 Sweet 17:50:06 #topic Elections 17:50:30 So I discussed the process of elections etc with ttx 17:50:52 Bascially by the letter of the law we don’t have to do an election until the fall elections 17:51:05 Which would mean putting up with me for another 6 months. 17:51:16 lol 17:51:33 _but_ I don’t want to get in the way of people who want to get rid of me :P 17:51:53 if we really want to get rid of you we'll do it the old fashioned way 17:51:57 lol 17:52:00 we have people for that 17:52:01 err.. I mean — sounds good :D 17:52:33 haha! 17:52:34 :P 17:53:05 I’m happy to stay as PTL for the next 6 months but if anyone has a concern around this please either approach me or nkinder and we’ll arrange some post-summit elections 17:53:12 Is that fair? 17:53:14 so I think you've done ok so far and you should possibly stick around until the dust settles from the change to Security 17:53:27 You’re too kind. 17:53:35 #vote hyakuhei 17:53:45 I actually had to re-write that 3 times to be less sarcastic :P 17:53:49 haha 17:53:59 hyakuhei: you get my vote, nothing has exploded or imploded yet, so good job! 17:54:05 gee thanks 17:54:08 heh 17:54:20 key word, "yet" 17:54:21 agreed, #vote hyakuhei 17:54:25 yup :P 17:54:28 :D 17:54:32 lol 17:54:36 lol 17:54:38 #vote for hillary 17:54:46 ... 17:54:56 I’m feeling the love right now guys :) 17:55:03 Lets move it along then 17:55:07 #topic any other business 17:55:14 Anything else to quickly discuss? 17:55:28 oh, one thing I have to do for keystone is get the rest of our repos running bandit 17:55:39 i wrote an ossn, still waiting for a core reviwer nudge.nudge... 17:55:40 I also wanted to wait on the g-r change for that. 17:55:53 bknudson: sounds good 17:55:59 elmiko: link? 17:56:14 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175065/ 17:56:35 it's for the issue hyakuhei suggested as low hanging fruit last time 17:57:24 Excellent, thank you elmiko ! I’ll review it after this meeting, thank you and congrats on what I think is your first OSSN :) 17:57:27 cool, will take a look 17:57:42 thanks =) 17:57:45 hyakuhei do we have enough core reviewers now we've lost bdpayne? 17:58:07 dg_: thats a good point 17:58:11 good point 17:58:19 Yes, because he’s not done many reviews for a long time 17:58:25 However, I’m happy to add some more too 17:58:29 just not an emergency. 17:59:08 Any last minute stuff to discuss? 17:59:18 nothing from me 17:59:25 no 17:59:41 Thanks all! 17:59:45 #endmeeting