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

Toc for Sensitive Data storage cheatsheet #377

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Toc for Sensitive Data storage cheatsheet #377

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

northdpole
Copy link
Contributor

@northdpole northdpole commented Mar 28, 2020

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the Cheat Sheet Series.

🚩 If your PR is related to grammar/typo mistakes, please double-check the file for other mistakes in order to fix all the issues in the current cheat sheet.

Please make sure that for your contribution:

  • In case of a new Cheat Sheet, you have used the Cheat Sheet template.
  • All the markdown files do not raise any validation policy violation, see the policy.
  • All the markdown files follow these format rules.
  • All your assets are stored in the assets folder.
  • All the images used are in the PNG format.
  • Any references to websites have been formatted as TEXT
  • You verified/tested the effectiveness of your contribution (e.g., the defensive code proposed is really an effective remediation? Please verify it works!).
  • The CI build of your PR pass, see the build status here.

If your PR is related to an issue, please finish your PR text with the following line:

This PR covers issue #.

Thank you again for your contribution 😃

@rbsec
Copy link
Contributor

rbsec commented Mar 29, 2020

Hi @northdpole.

My initial thoughts would be about how this fits in with the existing cheat sheets. We currently have:

  • Choosing and Using Security Questions (covers how to store answers for them)
  • Cryptographic storage (covers different ways to encrypt, algorithms, key management, etc)
  • Database Security (covers access control/permissions for database)
  • Key Management (although this is an older cheat sheet and could do with an update)
  • Password Storage (covers password/API key hashing)

Looking at the proposed ToC, it feels like there would be quite a lot of duplication with the existing cheat sheets, and potentially more confusion for the end user in terms of where they should be looking for information. Should this be a new cheat sheet in its own right, or perhaps should the we fill in any missing gaps in the existing cheat sheets with this content?

@ThunderSon @mackowski, what do you think?

Thanks

@ThunderSon
Copy link
Contributor

My thoughts on this are to make this pertaining to topics related to secure storage, and linking accordingly into the other ones. One example would be that this CS talks about permissions, and the DB CS references it. This can be done based on which is the bigger focus. So a KMS CS focuses on the keys and how to secure them, so this CS should reference them, and where the KMS needs things related to general storage factors, it references it from this CS

Copy link
Collaborator

@mackowski mackowski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like this but we have to very carefully make sure to not duplicate the content of other CSs. I like @ThunderSon idea how it can look like.
But what I like even more is to cover this topic #124 this is wider topic but if @northdpole can take it with our help it will be awesome. It will also have more unique content that will justify the need of a separate CS.

@ThunderSon ThunderSon added the WAITING_UPDATE Reserved to PR: Indicates that the core team is waiting update from the author of the PR. label Apr 26, 2020
@ThunderSon
Copy link
Contributor

@northdpole is busy currently, so this will be put on hold till they're around for more updates.

@northdpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

I like this but we have to very carefully make sure to not duplicate the content of other CSs. I like @ThunderSon idea how it can look like.
But what I like even more is to cover this topic #124 this is wider topic but if @northdpole can take it with our help it will be awesome. It will also have more unique content that will justify the need of a separate CS.

We can make this the opposite, it could be as simple as pointing to subsections of other cheatsheets instead of being a full blown document. What do you think? this would minimize overall edits you have to do.

@ThunderSon
I can write this in my current timeframe :) ( got some notes already from another project).
Thanks for being considerate! Highly appreciated :-)

In short, I'd be happy to help. Would you like a draft or otherwise how do you prefer on getting started?

@ThunderSon
Copy link
Contributor

@northdpole Based on our discussion on Slack, we agreed on a small touch-up on the ToC. Once that is done, I'll move forward and link sheets to the relevant sections, and then it'd be clearer for you on what is required and missing to be described properly.

@ThunderSon ThunderSon removed the WAITING_UPDATE Reserved to PR: Indicates that the core team is waiting update from the author of the PR. label Apr 29, 2020
@mackowski
Copy link
Collaborator

@northdpole are you still around? This can be an awesome CS

@mackowski mackowski requested review from jmanico and removed request for rbsec and ThunderSon July 29, 2020 07:39
@northdpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

northdpole commented Aug 4, 2020 via email

@mackowski
Copy link
Collaborator

@northdpole good to hear that! If you need any help from us let us know :)

add suggested  links to other cheatsheets,
update ToC slightly
add questions?
@northdpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

added some content and comments, let me know what do you think and i can edit accordingly :)

cheatsheets_draft/Sensitive_Data_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
The unintented advantage of this approach is that if a user's data needs to be deleted, only the associated key needs to be destroyed as this will make data unusable.

## Tokenizing
<this can be a cheatsheet by itself which does not exist currently do we want to do this?>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would like to do this, maybe we can start here and it this grow too much we can create new CS

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For tokenizing, it is really a niche subject not directly related to sensitive data storage. It is closer to Sensitive Data Handling. So I removed it from this cheatsheet but opened a ticket to create a new one #471

cheatsheets_draft/Sensitive_Data_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
## Cloud Storage
<there isn't a relevant cheatsheet for this>

# Managing Secrets
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We are also creating new CS: #124

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we postpone merging until #124 lands?

@mackowski
Copy link
Collaborator

@jmanico what do you think about this CS? Do we want to keep it, this is basically linking to all content from other CSs?

@jmanico
Copy link
Member

jmanico commented Aug 18, 2020

@jmanico what do you think about this CS? Do we want to keep it, this is basically linking to all content from other CSs?

I think this is a really interesting idea. In general, I want to welcome contributions that use our sheets in unique ways. :)

Copy link
Collaborator

@mackowski mackowski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@northdpole The links are not working. Links in the Contents are good but for all other links you are using a wrong syntax. After you fix it we can merge.

@mackowski
Copy link
Collaborator

@northdpole do you need any help from us?

@mackowski
Copy link
Collaborator

@northdpole hey do you need any help from us? Do you want to work on this further?

@mackowski
Copy link
Collaborator

I am closing this PR because no updes here were made in about 6 months. @northdpole feel free to re-open it whan you will have time to work on that.

@mackowski mackowski closed this Mar 2, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants