Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Trying to figure out how to lock down my CI runners as much as possible.

Trying to figure out how to lock down my CI runners as much as possible.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
24 Posts 8 Posters 59 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

    @azonenberg this is somewhat cursed but you can use nginx to do it. think of it as doing the inverse of the usual "reverse proxy" setup (so "reverse reverse proxy" I guess?): set up a server for "github.com" and location for "/user/repo" then proxy_pass it to actual github.com

    obviously needs your cert to be trusted; and HPKP doesn't exist anymore so I don't think anything will complain that doesn't hardcode GitHub's TLS cert

    azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
    azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
    azonenberg@ioc.exchange
    wrote last edited by
    #14

    @whitequark i have my own in-house TLS CA i can use in a pinch. Or a tls stripping proxy and run cleartext http client side (proxy and builder will live on same physical vm host so I'm not too worried about tampering)

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

      @azonenberg this is somewhat cursed but you can use nginx to do it. think of it as doing the inverse of the usual "reverse proxy" setup (so "reverse reverse proxy" I guess?): set up a server for "github.com" and location for "/user/repo" then proxy_pass it to actual github.com

      obviously needs your cert to be trusted; and HPKP doesn't exist anymore so I don't think anything will complain that doesn't hardcode GitHub's TLS cert

      r@glauca.spaceR This user is from outside of this forum
      r@glauca.spaceR This user is from outside of this forum
      r@glauca.space
      wrote last edited by
      #15

      @whitequark @azonenberg this is called a "forward proxy" and used to be a lot more common

      traditional use case was caching requests for a large enterprise, back when bandwidth was a lot more expensive. in the pre-HTTPS era this would even be set up to work transparently by intercepting connections on border routers

      btw, there's a very obvious situation where this still gets used today: url blocking for restrictive environments such as banks or, much more commonly, the compulsory schooling environment

      whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • bencc@morehammer.ukB bencc@morehammer.uk

        @azonenberg @whitequark Typically if you're using HTTPS through a squid proxy or similar without some sort of MITM CA hacks you can only restrict by domain name - the hosts will CONNECT to the proxy (instead of GET, etc), the ACLs will apply to the hostname, then it's effectively plain TCP proxying at that point.

        azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
        azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
        azonenberg@ioc.exchange
        wrote last edited by
        #16

        @bencc @whitequark This is a closed system and I already have an in house TLS PKI for other reasons. I have no problem doing a MITM CA if that's the way to do it.

        bencc@morehammer.ukB 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • r@glauca.spaceR r@glauca.space

          @whitequark @azonenberg this is called a "forward proxy" and used to be a lot more common

          traditional use case was caching requests for a large enterprise, back when bandwidth was a lot more expensive. in the pre-HTTPS era this would even be set up to work transparently by intercepting connections on border routers

          btw, there's a very obvious situation where this still gets used today: url blocking for restrictive environments such as banks or, much more commonly, the compulsory schooling environment

          whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
          whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
          whitequark@social.treehouse.systems
          wrote last edited by
          #17

          @r @azonenberg yes, I know that; what I mean is that virtually nobody runs nginx, specifically as a forward proxy, it would be normally Squid or something. so since nginx is almost exclusively used as a reverse proxy, it becomes a reverse reverse proxy 😛 like a horseful horseless carriage

          I did use nginx in this configuration back in HK when I needed to make Conda work on a 10 Mbps (not a typo) fiber line

          r@glauca.spaceR 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

            @r @azonenberg yes, I know that; what I mean is that virtually nobody runs nginx, specifically as a forward proxy, it would be normally Squid or something. so since nginx is almost exclusively used as a reverse proxy, it becomes a reverse reverse proxy 😛 like a horseful horseless carriage

            I did use nginx in this configuration back in HK when I needed to make Conda work on a 10 Mbps (not a typo) fiber line

            r@glauca.spaceR This user is from outside of this forum
            r@glauca.spaceR This user is from outside of this forum
            r@glauca.space
            wrote last edited by
            #18

            @whitequark @azonenberg oh hah, yes, brilliant

            azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA azonenberg@ioc.exchange

              Trying to figure out how to lock down my CI runners as much as possible.

              They need to be able to reach out to GitHub to HTTPS check out the source code, but I can't easily add a firewall rule for "can only clone this one repo from github".

              Ideas beyond "open port 443 outbound to the entire internet"?

              marshray@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
              marshray@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
              marshray@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #19

              @azonenberg You might be able to
              - find a document with a narrower set of address blocks that you can allowlist
              - secure transport layer (tls/ssh) intercepting proxy (yuck)

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • r@glauca.spaceR r@glauca.space

                @whitequark @azonenberg oh hah, yes, brilliant

                azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                azonenberg@ioc.exchange
                wrote last edited by
                #20

                @r @whitequark anyway one of the challenges is that i do need to enable cloning some third party repos and I might have to figure out something for forks in PRs.

                But allowing "all of github" is a good starting point and certainly better than letting the builders out to the internet at large

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA azonenberg@ioc.exchange

                  @bencc @whitequark This is a closed system and I already have an in house TLS PKI for other reasons. I have no problem doing a MITM CA if that's the way to do it.

                  bencc@morehammer.ukB This user is from outside of this forum
                  bencc@morehammer.ukB This user is from outside of this forum
                  bencc@morehammer.uk
                  wrote last edited by
                  #21

                  @azonenberg @whitequark possibly that's more work to set up, but doesn't rely on the entire software stack obeying http_proxy/https_proxy env vars for success. I'd not expect 100% there, so possibly MITM would be more reliable. Plus you get find out anything bundles its own CA list...

                  azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • bencc@morehammer.ukB bencc@morehammer.uk

                    @azonenberg @whitequark possibly that's more work to set up, but doesn't rely on the entire software stack obeying http_proxy/https_proxy env vars for success. I'd not expect 100% there, so possibly MITM would be more reliable. Plus you get find out anything bundles its own CA list...

                    azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                    azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                    azonenberg@ioc.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #22

                    @bencc @whitequark i only intend to do git clones and nothing else

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA azonenberg@ioc.exchange

                      Trying to figure out how to lock down my CI runners as much as possible.

                      They need to be able to reach out to GitHub to HTTPS check out the source code, but I can't easily add a firewall rule for "can only clone this one repo from github".

                      Ideas beyond "open port 443 outbound to the entire internet"?

                      lluad@mastodon.ieL This user is from outside of this forum
                      lluad@mastodon.ieL This user is from outside of this forum
                      lluad@mastodon.ie
                      wrote last edited by
                      #23

                      @azonenberg Can you use ssh instead of https for the checkout? Seems it might be easier to lock down to only authorized connections.

                      azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • lluad@mastodon.ieL lluad@mastodon.ie

                        @azonenberg Can you use ssh instead of https for the checkout? Seems it might be easier to lock down to only authorized connections.

                        azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                        azonenberg@ioc.exchangeA This user is from outside of this forum
                        azonenberg@ioc.exchange
                        wrote last edited by
                        #24

                        @lluad I ideally want to limit to specific repositories so i think https mitm/stripping proxy is the only viable route here

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        0
                        • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups