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

APP.4.4.A17 #43

Open
sluetze opened this issue Nov 7, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

APP.4.4.A17 #43

sluetze opened this issue Nov 7, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
existing-rules Existing rules exist for the requirement

Comments

@sluetze
Copy link

sluetze commented Nov 7, 2023

No description provided.

@ermeratos ermeratos added the not-checkable Requirement can not be checked with Compliance Operator label Dec 15, 2023
@ermeratos
Copy link

Nodes SHOULD send a cryptographically secured (and, if possible, TPM-verified) status message to the control plane.

This is already achieved natively by using RHCOS.

The control plane SHOULD ONLY accept nodes into a cluster that have successfully proven their integrity

Nodes need to authenticate with a certificate.

@benruland
Copy link

benruland commented Dec 20, 2023

Fore sentence 1, we could verify security on the relevant components, that are associated to that process (relevant config files on nodes and control plane, TLS config on both sides:

  • file_owner_kubelet
  • file_owner_kubelet_conf
  • file_owner_worker_ca
  • file_owner_worker_kubeconfig
  • file_groupowner_kubelet_conf
  • file_groupowner_worker_ca
  • file_groupowner_worker_kubeconfig
  • file_permissions_kubelet
  • file_permissions_kubelet_conf
  • file_permissions_worker_ca
  • file_permissions_worker_kubeconfig
  • kubelet_configure_client_ca
  • kubelet_configure_tls_cert
  • kubelet_configure_tls_key
  • kubelet_configure_tls_cipher_suites
  • kubelet_configure_tls_min_version
  • api_server_https_for_kubelet_conn
  • api_server_tls_cert
  • api_server_tls_private_key
  • api_server_tls_cipher_suites
  • api_server_tls_security_profile
  • ... maybe more?

For sentence 2, we could check, if the File Integrity Operator is installed, rule:

  • file_integrity_exists
  • file_integrity_notification_enabled

@benruland benruland added existing-rules Existing rules exist for the requirement and removed not-checkable Requirement can not be checked with Compliance Operator labels Mar 6, 2024
@benruland benruland self-assigned this Mar 6, 2024
@benruland
Copy link

Implementation completed in ComplianceAsCode#11659

@benruland
Copy link

During rebasing, I accidentially closed the previous PR. For better reviewability, I created a new PR: ComplianceAsCode#12153

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
existing-rules Existing rules exist for the requirement
Projects
Status: Upstream PR
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants