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

(rules): Integrate Control Tower Rules #241

Open
2 tasks
benbridts opened this issue Jan 6, 2023 · 0 comments
Open
2 tasks

(rules): Integrate Control Tower Rules #241

benbridts opened this issue Jan 6, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@benbridts
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Control Tower's ProActive Controls are implemented using cfn-guard and CloudFormation hooks. It would be great if pro-active could also be "while writing templates"

Use Case

Organizations enabling proactive controls within Control Tower would be able to verify their templates before deploying

Proposed Solution

using the same rule files and numbers (they're documented and available in the Control Tower console) would be a nice way to work with this. This might mean a second folder under rules (instead of rules/aws it could be rules/aws-ct)

Rule sets could use the frameworks from the Control Tower console (they're not in the documentation), possibly prefixed with CT_ so customers can decide if they want to use the current set of rules, or explicitly check against the Control Tower rules.

Other information

The current rule files do not allow suppressing the rules using the metadata section (instead you disable the guard rail in control tower). Keeping them exactly the same is a decent trade-off.

This would probably mean that customers will create there own rule sets, to match their Control Tower configuration. It might be worth investigating a way to make that easier (eg. a way to generate rule sets at run time)

I could technically create these rules myself, but I assume they are available internally in a way that does not require me to copy-paste from a website

Acknowledge

  • I may be able to implement this feature request
  • This feature might incur a breaking change
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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant