 Hi everyone, as you join, don't forget to add your name to the list of attendees on the Google Doc. I've posted a link to that document here in the chat. I'm also hoping that we can get at least one or ideally two people to sign up as scribes. This will probably be a pretty easy meeting to be ascribed for because I think we're only going to have a few quick topics it looks like on the agenda. So if anyone has been hesitant about being ascribed before or concerned about that process, then now is probably a good starter meeting to jump in. Yeah, I can I can do the scribe, but I'll need a couple of more minutes to jump on the laptop to open up the doc. Okay. While we wait for other people to come in and it looks like Ash's going to be able to help describe in the meantime. So why don't we start with our updates then? So, J.J., why don't you go ahead and go first? Yep. So we had we had a meeting with the TOC in terms of trying to identify projects for assessment. I think we got a consensus in the in the sense of what we have. One thing we'll be sensitive to is if there is a there's not a clear agreement of taking a project from TOC standpoint. I think that's a clear note from putting in a button investment on that. But otherwise we'll do it on a case-to-case basis in terms of consulting with you. So that's the part of the understanding that we walked away with from Joan Liz. Other than that, I have the spending task of working with Harvard to bring all the policy document into our repo. I'll try and work through that with him. There's an open issue there. What people should expect and see for us like one single place where they can see things about security and then different working groups within security for different areas of the problem like assessment policy and dot dot dot. So that's that's mostly the update that I have. Okay, great. I think I'm next on the list. Besides Christian, who I think isn't going to give an update. Christian, is that correct? Okay, so I had a we've been working on a few things related to tough and in total. Just to keep it really brief. We're working towards graduation of tough. I think we're just waiting for the TOC to call a vote on that. And in total is moving increasingly closer to incubation. So we should also have something in front of the TOC for that in the not too distant future in the next few weeks, hopefully. And we'll be able to present it at an upcoming meeting. Okay, Mark. Hey guys, nothing too new from the NIST big data working group. Although we do have approval from NIST for volume for insecurity and privacy. So should be an official announcement sometime before the end of the year. I'm going to put into the chat the request for review of the key management document from NIST. That's something that I don't know if we talked about too much in this group, but it's something we should keep under radar. Is it for me? Great, Amy. I think I'm next. So conversations about the security day, because I do not yet see Michael Ducey on the call. Actually, I'll just bring in some of his update. So we have a update on our room. We've been able to get the bigger room and I believe we will be capped at 200 for registration. So this is all good news. Have I still all over it then? No, it's fine. Okay, good. Everything for me. You're already talking. Go ahead. Yeah, sure. So yes, we're, we have a waitlist running for the six security day as well. So if you weren't able to get in, make sure you add yourself to the waitlist. I want to say we'll have probably about 40 tickets were released once we confirm the setting for the larger room. On other news I'm working on should be submitting probably later today, the pull request to request. Falco incubation. It's been really exciting kind of putting together the presentation and kind of going through and beginning the process of the due diligence to see kind of how much we've grown over the last two years as I worked on the project. So that's been fun. But we should be sending that in and then we're presenting on the CMC of TOC call next week on Tuesday. So if you want to join that call and lend your support project, we would appreciate it. Great. Thank you very much. I'm glad to hear that's moving along. Ash. No updates for this week. Thanks. Okay. Brandon. Hi. So couple of dates more from like the security end of what I'm doing. The container the support for container encryption was merged like two weeks and was released in 1.3. So at some point I will write something about it and maybe give a demo to the group. Other than that, my group has been exploring Intel SCCL libraries. This is kind of like something new that Intel has been working on that built on top of TPM. So originally it was Intel TXT, but now they're extending the interfaces beyond that to provide better security management. So if anyone's looking at that as well or is curious about that, I'd be happy to chat. Great. Tommy. Is this a fake name? Did somebody add this in? Looks like we have a... Oh, there we go. Mike. We already got you. Gareth. Yep. Manage is catching up. I've been traveling for several weeks too long. I'm not traveling for the next month. So I have got some bandwidth to do some bits pieces. Michael, if you need any final bits for the Falco presentation, like due diligence, sort of numbers, gathering for anything, let me know. Or if there's things that would be useful for this security stuff, I can definitely help out a bit in the next month. Great. Thank you. Okay. And then we have quite a few on the call who didn't put their names in and didn't give an update. Does anyone want to give an update who hasn't yet done so? I'm sorry. I was late. It's fast in here. Just if anyone's interested, we just open source some very early code. We've been working on with ARM yesterday for management of hardware security devices and encryption. So TPM and other related things. So what it's called Parsec. And it's very early stage, but we're working on a bunch of integrations with, for example, with Spiffy for that. And it might be of interest to be from the cloud space. I think maybe if you're interested. Sounds interesting. Okay. Anyone else want to go and give an update? Okay. Hearing none. We'll move on to the check-ins from our partner SIGs and working groups. So we already heard a little bit from Mark about the NIST big data working group. Does anyone from any of the other working groups here want to go and give a status update? All right. So we'll go ahead and move on. The next thing on here, I think JJ can probably say more. Was this what you discussed in part during your update or is there something else that needs to be said? Yeah. This is the one that I gave part of the update. And I think there is clarity in terms of what we want to pick for the next set of projects. And some understanding in terms of when we say no to a project. Okay. So that takes us to the end of our listed agenda items. Does anyone else have an item that they want to discuss or is there something else that we need should go into more detail about? One thing, sort of volunteer Ash here. I think Ash and Sarah presented OPA to TOC for review. So if there is any update on that or if there is any summary of that that can be shared with this team for the people that didn't attend TOC, that'll be useful. So we presented the assessment done for OPA as well as the review of the assessment as done by the review team. We presented a single slide. We can link to that. And also we have a PR open, which we linked to last week in the comments where people can add their comments and give us any feedback. So that's pretty much we are waiting on right now. Any feedback from the community on that PR related to the assessment itself as well as the review. Justin, if you want, you can add more to this. No, that's my understanding as well. And I do want to say that I think that for those who weren't there and also I think we discussed this last week, but I think the process of having the project, someone from the project like Ash in this case present part of it and someone from the assessment team, which was Sarah in this case present part of it, actually worked very well. So if you didn't get a chance, you can actually go look up the video and see how that went. But I think we'll probably continue with that structure for future assessments. Okay. I think Michael, I think you had something you wanted to bring up. Yeah. We were undergoing something new. We're calling it the, I'll share my screen in just a second. Let me pull it up. We're calling it the security hub or maybe the clock. Of course, a dog starts barking as I start presenting, right? So it's called the cloud native security hub. And the idea is that you can kind of have, it's kind of like the operator hub. If you've seen the operator. And with this, the idea is that you can have Falco rules, but also you could have things like security policies. Other kind of definitions. Of these, you know, different abstractions that you have in the security world and in cloud native. And then you can go and just download the thing. And then for the Falco rules right now, we're just using helm. And with the Falco helm chart, if you already have the Falco helm chart installed, you can just run a helm upgrade and pass in the rules. But then we're also thinking of for Falco or maybe going down the route of building like a CTL tool. So like Falco CTL to manage the rules or some other tool like that. And I'm going to pause and take a breath while people can comment and I can get this dog to be quiet. So I'll come in and say that there's been some conversations recently in the open policy agent slack and community generally about shared content and centralized shared content. So that might fit. It might be interesting conversation about how that would work with like Rigo as well. Yeah, because we could store those, the exact same, the Rigo files up here in the security hub. We could even have things like a place for like admission controllers and the validating web looks and stuff like that. That you can have a centralized location, at least where you can find them all, right? And even being a directory is useful. Yeah, I also like the generic security hub conversations today partly for me on the delivery about like operator hub and helm hub and the risk of having like, it's sort of like from an application standpoint, oh, where do I go get my applications for communities and the answer is it's spread out and there's talk of operator hub being part of CNCF and then there's suddenly just two of them within under the same banner. So this being generic at the same time as for security related CNCF projects sounds like better than the alternative of like Falcon hub and a policy agent hub. And like we've been down with like with a chef supermarket and whatever puppets module is called. Yeah, also related the OCI artifact sort of, well basically a spec edition. There's a distribution of content via OCI images and so backing things off like this from basically registries as a generic sort of thing is possibly interesting to explore later but that's basically an implementation detail to the front end. Yeah, and there's no reason why we want to, maybe that's the route we go and we use that OCI spec for content delivery. Maybe we integrate grapias for verification of artifacts and things like that. Yeah, I'm super happy to, if you, is this up now? Yeah, it's up now and also the code is, the code is out there and one of the big things that we need help with right now is design and I've asked them to fill out this read me because this is not helpful in how you drive contributions. So I asked them to fill out this read me to where we can start adding and people can have an understanding of what we need in the direction we want to take the project. Yeah, I'll ping Taurin and others in the open false agent project where we'll be having some of that conversation. Yeah, well Ash is on as well so we had a kind of separate conversation going on with Taurin about another thing that we're looking at doing. I'll drop these in the chat. Excellent. That sounds great. Any other comments? I would appreciate to hear if anyone has any other thoughts. I think it will be great to, I mean, it's, it's a great tool and I think it would be great to have a, have it open to other types of tools, you know, if he is one of them, but then there may be many other security tools that may have rules. So yeah, yeah. And I think with like the pod security policies, that's one of the challenges is that people don't understand all of the settings. They're not one of those experts at that low level. And so having in a place where users and the experts can collaborate and pull something that somebody's contributed that we know that would work or something like that could be useful. Right. Michael, this looks great to me. Is there like, are we going to move this to like the six security repos that everybody else can contribute under this project or it's going to remain with Falco? What's, what's the direction there? I think that's a, that's a great thing that we should probably talk about, or should we just get a security hub Falco and then we can invite people from the different projects who want to contribute and the maintainers of it. I think that's probably the direction we would want to take if people are interested in contributing. Yeah, I think similar to how the supply chain compromise was handled. I think that is being moved over. At least that would be something that would, I think be a model that maybe the chairs or others should discuss is like, what's the way that we should take resources like this? So maybe that's something, I don't know, to be surfaced as an item next week after everybody's had a chance to think through it. Yeah, I mean, that would be an interesting thing is that if it be a security sponsored project or backed project and then members of six security from the different CNCF projects could contribute to it. That's by, I mean, we'd be happy to talk about that route, but then it just being an independent thing that all the projects work on together. We're happy with that as well. Yeah, I'll take an action item to discuss this and then bring it up for discussion to the group next week. That's just an suggestion. Yeah, great. All right. Sorry, did I, I didn't mean to cut somebody off or someone about to say something. No, no, I was just commenting on the, the, the initiative to Michael. That's it. Like you can cut that off anytime because it's just Michael. I'm just kidding. Thanks. Anyone else have anything that they would like to add as an agenda item or discuss. That's Mark here. So, pardon my cold. A friend of mine was going to join last week and I missed last week. So it looks like from the notes he didn't show up. He's working with somebody in the open telemetry group. And I wondered if any of us have already contacted them because there's, you know, connection to what we're doing for security logging and forensics and they're trying to move that group forward as I understand it. Nope. All new. Okay. I'll try to get him to show up. Okay. Great. So anything else? So hearing nothing other than my slack keep. Pinging me about things. I think, uh, we've discussed the items we have for this week. So thanks to everybody for coming and look forward to talking to people next week. Thanks, Justin. Thanks for. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.