WoTTsecurity / wott-io

Website for WoTT.
https://wott.io
MIT License
1 stars 8 forks source link

Write out FAQ entries for recommended actions #198

Open vpetersson opened 4 years ago

vpetersson commented 4 years ago

Here are the recommended actions that we currently have in our system:

For each of these, we need to write out a corresponding FAQ entry. These entries need to be 3-5 paragraphs that gives the user some background to the problem and why it is important.

The idea is to then embed the corresponding FAQ entry into the dashboard. However, we do want to keep this in the FAQ due to SEO benefits.

AlEsmail commented 4 years ago

@vpetersson Should this also include more elaborate tutorials on how to remediate?

vpetersson commented 4 years ago

That's not applicable to all of them, but where applicable, we should probably do that in a blog post instead.

vpetersson commented 4 years ago

I'm turning this issue into a "parent issue" instead and will be distributing the work.

For context, content for three places to keep in mind:

Considerations for the versions

For each of these we need to define:

Be mindful that all of these can include variables, such as package names etc. Also, note that we should strive to make this understandable for users without too deep technical knowledge.

Use Markdown for all content.

tl;dr version

This part needs to be very short. It should be a quick tl;dr and explain what the issue is that we discovered and provide the solution (such as the command).

This should be a paragraph as a description, and then a command block below it.

Faq version

This is a more elaborate version of the previous one. We would normally assume that the person has read the tl;dr version when reading this.

In this version, you need to expand on the problem and properly explain why this is an issue with supporting facts (such as attack vectors).

This should be 3-6 paragraphs (use your best judgment). Keep in mind that most users will read this in a popover within the dashboard.

Github version

The Github version is likely going to be similar to the Faq version. We need to provide enough backstory here, because this will be read independently by users who may not have seen the WoTT Dashboard.

It's perfectly fine (and probably preferable) to include a link to the FAQ entry (or tutorial) in here.

Tutorial version

This is not applicable to all of the recommended actions. Where this is relevant is if it is something that is worth exploring in depth that we can write an entire blog post about.

vpetersson commented 4 years ago

@a-martynovich Are we not missing Redis in this list btw?

fshmcallister commented 4 years ago

Am I still working on this? I'm a little lost :'(

vpetersson commented 4 years ago

@fshmcallister This is a big task, so I've broken it out into sections. Let me create a sub-task for you.

a-martynovich commented 4 years ago

@vpetersson

Are we not missing Redis in this list btw?

There never was a task regarding Redis. Hence it's not in the list.

vpetersson commented 4 years ago

There never was a task regarding Redis. Hence it's not in the list.

Ok, I'll add it in.

fshmcallister commented 4 years ago

I have created a set of issues based off each article after talking to Al. I can't add labels or assignments but am going to try tackle all of these except #206 #208 #209 #210 which @Menmarin can do. Each block needs:

Comment directly in issue for @vpetersson to review afterwards. I will leave options within the issues to consider

AlEsmail commented 4 years ago

@fshmcallister For the titles, can you implement some consistency? Are we going to give them an action (e.g. Enable updates) or a vulnerability (e.g. Insecure OpenSSH configuration).

Secondly, remove the extra words - e.g. your and found

Perhaps the Title could be the vulnerability and the 'Grey Title' can be the 'brief' action.

You make the call, but be consistent.

fshmcallister commented 4 years ago

These are just placeholders based off the context of the parent issue to make things a bit quicker to do. I personally think that exposing a vulnerability is a nicer option, thoughts?

The issues as they are are not the working titles - they're just there to work off of. All the 'new stuff' will be commented

AlEsmail commented 4 years ago

I like the idea of the 'action' being the title but I think this might get difficult depending on what it is. Let's go with vulnerability as you suggest.

fshmcallister commented 4 years ago

Suggestion for scaleability:

As WoTT is going to be implemented on large fleets of devices for some companies, perhaps group an issue by type that can be expanded once the number of affected devices exceeds a number, say 10.

In the image, you see a note that says 'Affected nodes' followed by a list. Perhaps have an implementation of: 'Node 1', 'Node 2', 'Node 3', and others Whereupon clicking 'others' would expand a list of affected nodes

AlEsmail commented 4 years ago

Good idea - put this in slack in the design chat and tag alex capellan