Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Refine CVE check in check script for k8s version policy #779
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Refine CVE check in check script for k8s version policy #779
Changes from 10 commits
d96edd7
0caf99d
ebfe951
e635411
a298678
cfc3dc6
54ee694
cc87097
38921f1
12987e5
1d332ae
11daeac
e62b347
5ab2bd0
5e2b764
3348960
4a59878
cea9840
c676f5f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This standard has been stabilized already, for better or worse. New requirements can only be introduced in a new major version (then v3). However, I'm not sure that this was the original objective of this PR; here, we mainly wanted some tooling for the compliance check, and the providers are free to use whatever tools they want. (We can put these items into the implementation notes though, but only as non-authoritative recommendation!)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
does that mean that I should restore original version of standard?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be good to make your research results available. We should just reframe them as guidelines for operators. We could write a blog post. I would then ask you to get feedback from Team Container. It would be good to talk to people who already use Trivy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What I have done right now is restore the original standard text and drop the changes.
According to the code, there were several changes made:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not what I see.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Have you done that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mbuechse I do apologize, I have reverted it now, it was lost somewhere on my git in the mess with the branches
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have not, I will bring that topic on the nearest container call(last week there was not a container call at all).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This variable is not used (this fact gets reported by flake8 as well), and this doesn't seem right?!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
deleted
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This needs some more explanation, because almost the same message will be displayed in line 577 (only better, because there, it contains the context as well).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
would that be satisfying?
f""" Initiating scan on the Kubernetes cluster specified by kubeconfig at '{kubeconfig_path}'
{' with context ' + config.context if config.context else ''}.
Fetching cluster information and verifying access.""")
scanner provides in the output additional info regarding vulnerability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My point was that it looks like a duplicate of the other line, and it appears to me that the script now tries to achieve the same objective with two different means, one after the other.