Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chores(deployment) : Fix security issues with ports, bump traefik #319

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 17, 2024

Conversation

vperron
Copy link
Contributor

@vperron vperron commented Oct 15, 2024

No description provided.

@vperron vperron self-assigned this Oct 15, 2024
@vperron vperron requested a review from vmttn as a code owner October 15, 2024 12:53
Copy link
Contributor

@vmttn vmttn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

bien vu pour la montée de version !

@@ -127,8 +127,6 @@ services:
test: [ "CMD", "pg_isready", "-U", "${DATAWAREHOUSE_DI_USERNAME}"]
interval: 5s
retries: 5
ports:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

En soi pas de risque ici. Le port n'est pas accessible, cf la ressource tf scaleway_instance_security_group.main.

Par contre je crois qu'Hugo serait impacté, car je crois qu'il utilise un client (genre dbeaver) et un tunnel ssh pour accèder à ce port. @hlecuyer ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@vperron vperron Oct 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

J'avais bien noté qu'il n'était pas accessible de l'extérieur mais du coup, je me disais que c'etait "grâce" à une conf explicite Scaleway, ce qui fait un peu "rattrapage" ?

Mais OK, je peux le laisser tranquille. C'est en effet pratique pour lancer des psql directs sur la machine, surtout puisque la configuration de Docker-compose ne permet pas l'accès direct via l'IP du container.

Par contre le port 8081 exposé par traefik, pas certain qu'on en ait besoin ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ça me choque pas. La conf scaleway fait à peu près la même chose qu'un ufw qui est plutot classique je crois quand on déploie sur une instance

non le reste du patch c'est ok !

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK !

It's been a while, for safety and sanity, le'ts bump it.

Checked functional so far.
@vperron vperron force-pushed the vperron/dep-chores branch from 783ab43 to fc20f6c Compare October 17, 2024 15:19
@vperron vperron merged commit 38c046f into main Oct 17, 2024
5 checks passed
@vperron vperron deleted the vperron/dep-chores branch October 17, 2024 16:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants