Navigation

    Inedo Community Forums

    Forums

    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    1. Home
    2. davidroberts63
    D
    • Profile
    • Following
    • Followers
    • Topics
    • Posts
    • Best
    • Groups

    davidroberts63

    @davidroberts63

    1
    Reputation
    27
    Posts
    12
    Profile views
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online

    davidroberts63 Follow

    Best posts made by davidroberts63

    • RE: ProGet configuration as code (IaC)?

      As an existing customer, we haven't reached the point of considering doing IaC with ProGet ... yet. However, since it was brought up I do agree it would be helpful. Eventually we will likely make use of the existing APIs that are available. Such as the security apis, feed apis, and asset apis. Hopefully those are helpful to you @mikael.

      The comment made about trying to rollback a feed that had been deleted and the original artifacts not being restored is true. However, that point is mostly irrelevant because the same exact situation occurs if one deletes the feed from the UI. One benefit of IaC in a situation like that is one of prevention. By utilizing IaC, we can engage an additional layer of review in configuration changes to tools such as ProGet. A review that is performed outside of ProGet at a textual level and informative of what is changing. While trusted administrators would be ultimately responsible, we are still human and make mistakes. IaC is a helper in reducing those mistakes and helpful in sharing knowledge of how things are configured.

      To the point of IaC changes of permissions/users being more painful than the UI, that is entirely dependent upon the tool involved. We almost (again, human and making improvements) exclusively use IaC to apply permissions in our cloud resources. It works wonderfully and gives us clear indication of the config. Another benefit is we can give others outside of the admin side the ability to recommend actual changes to the permissions if need be. Responsible administrators can then review and potentially approve it or reject it with reasons. It provides a sense of shared ability within separate but closely operating teams. It also gives them easy, heavily reduced risk, read only access to the configuration.

      Additionally, IaC helps from an auditing perspective immensely. The UI can be locked down to only a couple of emergency use administrators. Configuration changes being made soley via IaC gives a clear history, via git commit logs, of who made the change, what the change was and when it was implemented. While this can be done by streaming logs from tools such as ProGet to destinations like Splunk, it is incredibly useful to have that in the git history as well for teams to reference.

      Admittedly these benefits are of most use to organizations with specific controls that must be adhered to. Either external regulatory requirements or by internal business security control decisions. Other organizations would not benefit from IaC of this nature.

      I recognize and respect that there are no plans to do IaC of ProGet. That's a business and customer driven decision. However, it is hoped this adds positively to any other discussion of IaC configuration of ProGet.

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63

    Latest posts made by davidroberts63

    • RE: ProGet configuration as code (IaC)?

      As an existing customer, we haven't reached the point of considering doing IaC with ProGet ... yet. However, since it was brought up I do agree it would be helpful. Eventually we will likely make use of the existing APIs that are available. Such as the security apis, feed apis, and asset apis. Hopefully those are helpful to you @mikael.

      The comment made about trying to rollback a feed that had been deleted and the original artifacts not being restored is true. However, that point is mostly irrelevant because the same exact situation occurs if one deletes the feed from the UI. One benefit of IaC in a situation like that is one of prevention. By utilizing IaC, we can engage an additional layer of review in configuration changes to tools such as ProGet. A review that is performed outside of ProGet at a textual level and informative of what is changing. While trusted administrators would be ultimately responsible, we are still human and make mistakes. IaC is a helper in reducing those mistakes and helpful in sharing knowledge of how things are configured.

      To the point of IaC changes of permissions/users being more painful than the UI, that is entirely dependent upon the tool involved. We almost (again, human and making improvements) exclusively use IaC to apply permissions in our cloud resources. It works wonderfully and gives us clear indication of the config. Another benefit is we can give others outside of the admin side the ability to recommend actual changes to the permissions if need be. Responsible administrators can then review and potentially approve it or reject it with reasons. It provides a sense of shared ability within separate but closely operating teams. It also gives them easy, heavily reduced risk, read only access to the configuration.

      Additionally, IaC helps from an auditing perspective immensely. The UI can be locked down to only a couple of emergency use administrators. Configuration changes being made soley via IaC gives a clear history, via git commit logs, of who made the change, what the change was and when it was implemented. While this can be done by streaming logs from tools such as ProGet to destinations like Splunk, it is incredibly useful to have that in the git history as well for teams to reference.

      Admittedly these benefits are of most use to organizations with specific controls that must be adhered to. Either external regulatory requirements or by internal business security control decisions. Other organizations would not benefit from IaC of this nature.

      I recognize and respect that there are no plans to do IaC of ProGet. That's a business and customer driven decision. However, it is hoped this adds positively to any other discussion of IaC configuration of ProGet.

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • RE: OCI support?

      I agree the hostname aspect is problematic at times. We've seen that with npm lock files disrupting build processes because our build servers block access to the public npm registry.

      Would you elaborate on what you meant by "Tags are not suitable for versioning."? As far I am aware, tags are the primary way to denote different versions of a container image. Yes, the 'latest' tag is a shortcut to the most recent build of an image. And as you mentioned, many users consider specific versioning to be important, we are one of those users. But if tags are not for versioning container images, what is?

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • RE: Proget 2024 SCA Permissions

      Thank you, that did the trick.

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • Proget 2024 SCA Permissions

      Proget 2024.12

      Can someone point me to documentation on what permission is needed for a user to gain access to the 'Projects & Builds' section of the 'Reporting & SCA' tab? Currently I have some that can see the 'Licenses' part but get a 403 when visiting the 'Projects & Builds' part.

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • RE: Licensed pacakges showing on Unlicensed Local Packages listing

      Ahh, that was it. I explicitly enabled the license detection on that feed, reanalyzed it and noticed it found a license. That package and others are being reanalyzed and falling off that list. Thank you for that.

      I believe this occurred due to some confusion in the UI. When I originally looked at the feed settings I saw this:

      LicenseDetectionDisabled.png

      Which indicated to me the license detection was enabled. However when clicking 'change' that option was not ticked. Ticking that checkbox now shows the green checkmark with the same text and the rest of the license checking seems to be working as expected.

      That initial text (screenshot from above) is very confusing. Because it literally says license detection enabled. Rather than 'License detection disabled', like the vulnerability detection says when it is disabled on some of our feeds. If it is possible to change that text to reflect the actual status I think that could be helpful to others.

      Thank you Alana for your help it is greatly appreciated.

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • RE: Licensed pacakges showing on Unlicensed Local Packages listing

      Thank you Alana,

      That was very helpful. I appreciate it. I did query that PackageLicense23_Extended view for the 'Microsoft.Identity.Client'. It did show a lot of that package's versions having the MIT license associated with it. However it is in fact missing a record for the 4.66.0 version. Actually it is missing license records for anything after 4.63.0. I did click on 'Reanalyze Package' for the 4.66.0 version, but no change was seen in the UI or the database. I've pasted the results of the reanalysis if it may be of any help.

      Package "pkg:nuget/Microsoft.Identity.Client@4.66.0" will analyzed with local data
      Package originates from package gallery (https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json); remote metadata will be used to determine latest patch version instead of local feed.
      Attempting to update local package with remote metadata...
      No Remote Metadata Provider was found for "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json"
      Detecting vulnerabilities for "Microsoft.Identity.Client" version "4.66.0"...
      Found 0 vulnerabilities.
      Searching policies associated with feed "approved-nugets"...
      Found 1 policy to use for analysis.
      No policies define a latest patch, so latest patch will not be checked.

      Here's the query I ran:

      SELECT Package_Name,PackageType_Name,Package_Version,Title_Text,External_Id,License_Id FROM PackageLicenses_Extended WHERE Package_Name LIKE 'Microsoft.Identity.Client%' ORDER BY Package_Name,Package_Version
      

      And here is part of the query results:

      Microsoft.Identity.Client nuget 4.61.1 MIT License MIT 186
      Microsoft.Identity.Client nuget 4.61.2 MIT License MIT 186
      Microsoft.Identity.Client nuget 4.61.3 MIT License MIT 186
      Microsoft.Identity.Client nuget 4.62.0 MIT License MIT 186
      Microsoft.Identity.Client nuget 4.63.0 MIT License MIT 186
      Microsoft.Identity.Client nuget 4.7.1 MIT License MIT 186

      It almost looks as if ProGet is falling back to the last available license for the package. At the moment, the UI does appear to be consistent with the database data in part.

      Would you have any recommendations on how to get the package license information properly updated in the database so the UI removes it from the unlicensed listing?

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • Licensed pacakges showing on Unlicensed Local Packages listing

      In Proget, we have a lot of packages that show up on the 'Unlicensed Local Packages' listing, but when we view most of them, the package states it has a known license. Is there some setting that is making this occur? For example:

      Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.66.0

      Is a nuget that is MIT licensed as noted on nuget.org. When I view the list of Unlicensed Local Packages, that package also shows up there. Clicking on that package and going to the metadata tab it shows 'SPDX Expression (MIT) Known type (MIT)' for license. We do not understand why this licensed package is showing up on the unlicensed listing. Why is this happening? And is there something we can do to correct it?

      ProGet
      Version 2024.12 (Build 10)

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • RE: License Usage Overview - Non-compliant Licenses in Use

      @apxltd At the moment we only have five I think. The adoption rate of it has been slow due to the SCA feature being very interesting but lacking the presentation of some valuable information, such as what this thread addresses. Once the adoption grows with increased information connectivity (builds with the associated packages for instance and this license component) we would likely have more than 300 or 400 build projects.

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • RE: License Usage Overview - Non-compliant Licenses in Use

      I would like to add my support for that UI for viewing the Active Builds Using "[license]" and Packages Using "[license]". The recommendation of allowing to sort by the package or the project name would be very helpful. I was looking for this exact view in Proget (2024.12) for the past few days as we have a similar situation.

      Also, on the builds page, I'd recommend having a sort and/or filter ability for the Stage. We may want to review production stages as a priority and then the rest as a secondary effort. Filtering or at least sorting would greatly assist in focusing our efforts.

      Does there happen to be a PG tracking number that we could follow to be aware when it gets released?

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63
    • RE: ProGet product version api

      @stevedennis This is perfect. I greatly appreciate this, Steve.

      posted in Support
      D
      davidroberts63