News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Every Sufficiently Advanced Configuration Language Is Wrong by patrakov on Saturday June 25, 2022 @03:54PM (#31878200)
The problem with configuration expressed as a code is that it is not automatically auditable. With simple ini or json files, the auditing tool can just parse them, or, even worse, grep, and find out if a particular option has a certain legally-mandated value. This also applies to configuration files generated via templating - you just feed the end result to the auditing tool. With the code, the auditing tool would need to run the code, and this is a no-no from a security perspective.
Re:Every Sufficiently Advanced Configuration Language Is Wrong by renox on Saturday June 25, 2022 @04:22PM (#31878419)
If you need this, you can split your application in two parts: one which creates the objects, then these objects are serialised to a 'configuration file formats' which can be audited and then used by the 'real' application.

IMHO this kind of audit is useless because even if one option has the expected value what guarantees do you have that this option is used as expected? Well you have to audit the code!

Re:Every Sufficiently Advanced Configuration Language Is Wrong by Lutger on Saturday June 25, 2022 @05:16PM (#31878803)
I think it's better in any case to pull the config values from your actual live resources in some sort of read-only view.

This is the only way to be sure you're auditing what you think you're auditing, and it doesn't matter what kind of provisioning tool you've used.

Re:Every Sufficiently Advanced Configuration Language Is Wrong by dilyevsky on Saturday June 25, 2022 @05:18PM (#31878817)
Configuration languages typically produce a json/protobuf/thrift/etc serialization (if designed well that is) so just audit that.