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

Remove ambiguity on Network vs IAM controls #582

Open
mlysaght2017 opened this issue Dec 8, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Remove ambiguity on Network vs IAM controls #582

mlysaght2017 opened this issue Dec 8, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@mlysaght2017
Copy link
Contributor

Feature Request

Description of Problem:

I'm a bit confused about CCC.05: https://github.com/finos/common-cloud-controls/blob/main/services/common-controls.yaml#L191

Is it intended to be an IAM layer control or a Network layer control or both? Right now it's down as being a member of the IAM family, but reads more like a network layer control (to me at least). If we intend it to be both, the control_family object should be an array.

Also, a common feature was added recently for network access rules: https://github.com/finos/common-cloud-controls/blob/main/services/common-features.yaml#L31

The feature for IAM is this one: https://github.com/finos/common-cloud-controls/blob/main/services/common-features.yaml#L31 which is explicit about it relating to user identities.

If we're making the distinction at the feature level between network and iam access controls, then that should probably be separated out at the threat and control level too.

Potential Solutions:

I think we need to separate out IAM and Network Controls...?

@mlysaght2017
Copy link
Contributor Author

@eddie-knight @smendis-scottlogic - could just be me, but I struggled with this one.

@eddie-knight
Copy link
Contributor

This seems related to my poorly caputured issue #490

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants