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

Michal dev security microsoft.security 2017 08 01 preview #6563

Conversation

MichalHel
Copy link
Contributor

@MichalHel MichalHel commented Jul 7, 2019

Latest improvements:

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Contribution checklist:

  • I have reviewed the documentation for the workflow.
  • Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.
  • The OpenAPI Hub was used for checking validation status and next steps.

ARM API Review Checklist

  • Service team MUST add the "WaitForARMFeedback" label if the management plane API changes fall into one of the below categories.
  • adding/removing APIs.
  • adding/removing properties.
  • adding/removing API-version.
  • adding a new service in Azure.

Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs.

  • If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged urgently, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.
    Please follow the link to find more details on API review process.

@MichalHel MichalHel added the DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval label Jul 7, 2019
@openapi-sdkautomation
Copy link

openapi-sdkautomation bot commented Jul 7, 2019

SDK Automation [Logs] (Generated from 0e0525c, Iteration 15)

Warning Go: Azure/azure-sdk-for-go [Logs] [Diff]
Succeeded Python: Azure/azure-sdk-for-python [Logs] [Diff]
Succeeded JavaScript: Azure/azure-sdk-for-js [Logs] [Diff]

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jul 7, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

A PR has been created for you based on this PR content.

Once this PR will be merged, content will be added to your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#5709

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jul 7, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#5352

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jul 7, 2019

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-java

@azuresdkci
Copy link
Contributor

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

"recommendationsConfiguration": [
{
"recommendationType": "IoT_ACRAuthentication",
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
"name": "Service Principal Not Used with ACR",

"value": "EnableDiagnosticsLog",
"description": "Enable logs and retain them for up to a year. Retaining logs enables you to recreate activity trails for investigation purposes when a security incident occurs or your network is compromised."
"value": "IoT_VulnerableTLSCipherSuite",
"description": "Unsecure TLS configurations detected. Immediate upgrade recommended."
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"description": "Unsecure TLS configurations detected. Immediate upgrade recommended."
"description": "Insecure TLS configurations detected. Immediate upgrade recommended."

Copy link
Contributor

@nschonni nschonni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Prinicpal -> Principal

"description": "Open Ports on device",
"status": "TurnedOff"
"recommendationType": "IoT_ACRAuthentication",
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
"name": "Service Principal Not Used with ACR",

"description": "Open Ports on device",
"status": "TurnedOff"
"recommendationType": "IoT_ACRAuthentication",
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
"name": "Service Principal Not Used with ACR",

"recommendationsConfiguration": [
{
"recommendationType": "IoT_ACRAuthentication",
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
"name": "Service Principal Not Used with ACR",

"description": "Open Ports on device",
"status": "TurnedOff"
"recommendationType": "IoT_ACRAuthentication",
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
"name": "Service Principal Not Used with ACR",

"recommendationType": "OpenPortsOnDevice",
"status": "TurnedOff"
"recommendationType": "IoT_ACRAuthentication",
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"name": "Service Prinicpal Not Used with ACR",
"name": "Service Principal Not Used with ACR",

MichalHel and others added 6 commits July 8, 2019 10:01
…view/2017-08-01-preview/iotSecuritySolutions.json

Co-Authored-By: Nick Schonning <nschonni@gmail.com>
…view/2017-08-01-preview/examples/IoTSecuritySolutions/CreateIoTSecuritySolution_example.json

Co-Authored-By: Nick Schonning <nschonni@gmail.com>
@MichalHel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can someone please approve this PR

@KrisBash KrisBash added WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jul 16, 2019
@MichalHel MichalHel removed the DoNotMerge <valid label in PR review process> use to hold merge after approval label Jul 17, 2019
@MichalHel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can someone please inform me why the PR is not approved yet??

"DenyDefaultIpPolicy",
"TooLargeIPRange",
"EnableDiagnosticsLog"
"IoT_ACRAuthentication",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's the motivation behind prefixing with "IoT_"?

"IoT_EdgeLoggingOptions",
"IoT_InconsistentModuleSettings",
"IoT_InstallAgent",
"IoT_IPFilter_DenyAll",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not completely sure that "_" is a permissible value in each of the languages the swagger is used to generate. Might be easier to go with "IPFilterDenyAll" and "IPFilterPermissiveRule"

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was reviewed with our PMs & technical writers.
This field contains the type of the recommendation which is a code that the customer can use in order to view specific recommendation. there is also fields with the description that explains the customer what each recommendation means.
it should be the same value as we generates internally in our system and changing it is a lot of work.
All swagger tests were passed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. So I take it you've never published an SDK with these old values? @nschonni is reviewing from the SDK side, so if he's good with it then it's fine by me.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@antmarti-microsoft sorry, I'm actually not an MS employee 😉

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah sorry, my bad! In that case @shahabhijeet it looks like you've been assigned to this PR - please could you take a look?

@anthony-c-martin anthony-c-martin added ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jul 25, 2019
@hagba
Copy link
Contributor

hagba commented Jul 26, 2019 via email

@anthony-c-martin anthony-c-martin added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed ARMChangesRequested <valid label in PR review process>add this label when require changes after ARM review WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jul 26, 2019
Copy link
Member

@anthony-c-martin anthony-c-martin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We've had confirmation that SDKs haven't been published yet, so the breaking enum changes should be fine. Signing off for ARM.

@shahabhijeet shahabhijeet merged commit bb46e5b into Azure:master Jul 26, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants