Re:Binary Authorization for Borg
by trishankdatadog on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @10:46AM
(#21825999)
I am perfectly aware that Binary Authorization for Borg is for binaries running inside Google.
I am saying that our solution provides almost the opposite: publicly-verifiable assurance that you are running legitimate binaries, despite being built by automation
in-toto.io also addresses the "proof it went through some steps". How would you compare the two systems?
The biggest difference for me is that in-toto allows you to define any set of upstream metadata requirements, in a very open format, and Binary Authorization has a set of centrally defined requirements, that teams tend to implement in tranches, to meet minimum requirements. It may sound better to have a freeform format, but in practice, I've found that it makes it harder for people to know what they should actually do.
In Binary Authorization for Borg, services still define service-specific policies, but pick from a previously defined set of potential requirements. See the section on service-specific policies: https://cloud.google.com/security/binary-authorization-for-b...
You can more easily compare Grafeas and Kritis (OSS projects Google developed, which are similar to GCR Vulnerability Scanning and Binary Authorization for GKE), to in-toto. In fact, I gave a talk covering some of the options for this here: https://youtu.be/uDWXKKEO8NU?t=1314
Disclosure: I work at Google and helped write this whitepaper on Binary Authorization for Borg.
Disclosure: I work at Google and helped write this whitepaper on Binary Authorization for Borg.