feat(cnoe-verification): added description of the findings researching the validation and verification capabilities in the CNOE framework #10
2 changed files with 71 additions and 0 deletions
3
content/en/docs/solution/tools/CNOE/_index.md
Normal file
3
content/en/docs/solution/tools/CNOE/_index.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: CNOE
|
||||
---
|
||||
68
content/en/docs/solution/tools/CNOE/verification.md
Normal file
68
content/en/docs/solution/tools/CNOE/verification.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: Validation and Verification
|
||||
weigth: 100
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Definition
|
||||
|
||||
The CNOE docs do somewhat interchange validation and verification but for the
|
||||
most part they adhere to the general definition:
|
||||
|
||||
> Validation is used when you check your approach before actually executing an
|
||||
> action.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
- Form validation before processing the data
|
||||
- Compiler checking syntax
|
||||
- Rust's borrow checker
|
||||
|
||||
> Verification describes testing if your 'thing' complies with your spec
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
- Unit tests
|
||||
- Testing availability (ping, curl health check)
|
||||
- Checking a ZKP of some computation
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## In CNOE
|
||||
|
||||
It seems that both validation and verification within the CNOE framework are
|
||||
not actually handled by some explicit component but should be addressed
|
||||
throughout the system and workflows.
|
||||
|
||||
As stated in the [docs](https://cnoe.io/docs/intro/capabilities/validation),
|
||||
validation takes place in all parts of the stack by enforcing strict API usage
|
||||
and policies (signing, mitigations, security scans etc, see usage of kyverno
|
||||
for example), and using code generation (proven code), linting, formatting,
|
||||
LSP. Consequently, validation of source code, templates, etc is more a best
|
||||
practice rather than a hard fact or feature and it is up to the user
|
||||
to incorporate them into their workflows and pipelines. This is probably
|
||||
due to the complexity of the entire stack and the individual properties of
|
||||
each component and applications.
|
||||
|
||||
Verification of artifacts and deployments actually exists in a somewhat similar
|
||||
state. The current CNOE reference-implementation does not provide sufficient
|
||||
verification tooling.
|
||||
|
||||
However, as stated in the [docs](https://cnoe.io/docs/reference-implementation/integrations/verification)
|
||||
within the framework `cnoe-cli` is capable of extremely limited verification of
|
||||
artifacts within kubernetes. The same verification is also available as a step
|
||||
within a backstage
|
||||
[plugin](https://github.com/cnoe-io/plugin-scaffolder-actions). This is pretty
|
||||
much just a wrapper of the cli tool. The tool consumes CRD-like structures
|
||||
defining the state of pods and CRDs and checks for their existence within a
|
||||
live cluster ([example](https://github.com/cnoe-io/cnoe-cli/blob/main/pkg/cmd/prereq/ack-s3-prerequisites.yaml)).
|
||||
|
||||
Depending on the aspiration of 'verification' this check is rather superficial
|
||||
and might only suffice as an initial smoke test. Furthermore, it seems like the
|
||||
feature is not actually used within the CNOE stacks repo.
|
||||
|
||||
For a live product more in depth verification tools and schemes are necessary
|
||||
to verify the correct configuration and authenticity of workloads, which is, in
|
||||
the context of traditional cloud systems, only achievable to a limited degree.
|
||||
|
||||
Existing tools within the stack, e.g. Argo, provide some verification
|
||||
capabilities. But further investigation into the general topic is necessary.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue