Closed Jkrzy closed 4 years ago
Does this have any ATO implications? Do we need to chat with Susan Frederick first?
So long as we're still implementing RA-5: vulnerability scanning -- and we are -- we should be ok.
I also updated the last checklist item there to specifically include a review of the SSP to make sure our control narratives are up-to-date.
We should confirm that GitHub security covers everything that snyk does before removing. I would assume that these tools complement one another given that github integrates both.
Vytas Fidleris of snyk submits the following:
"Snyk works across the entire SDLC (CLI -> production), not just in the git repo, as well as being able to support multiple Gits at once. Even if you only plan on working on security within Github, Snyk provides license compliance support, deeper reporting and vulnerability prioritization and a more extensive vulnerability database (only 1/3 of the database is publicly available knowledge). The dependency tree that Snyk builds out is extensive and lists ALL transitive dependencies (where ~78% vulnerabilities lie), while providing automated remediation for the vulnerabilities. Github's security capabilities are great for individual developers, Snyk is built out more as a tool to be used by organizations."
I'm moving this back into to-do.
As an immediate step, I've removed the stalled Snyk checks from the required
steps before merging into master
Sticking with snyk per: https://github.com/18F/tts-tech-portfolio/issues/403
We're currently using both Github Security and Snyk to monitor dependencies. Reports have been comparable.
In an effort to consolidate our Dependency Analysis tooling, let's move entirely to Github Security as our sole provider of Dependency analysis/scanning.
We'll know we're done when