Skip to content

CICD Cybersecurity proposal#262

Open
sbtaylor15 wants to merge 2 commits into
cdfoundation:mainfrom
sbtaylor15:cybersecurity
Open

CICD Cybersecurity proposal#262
sbtaylor15 wants to merge 2 commits into
cdfoundation:mainfrom
sbtaylor15:cybersecurity

Conversation

@sbtaylor15
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

CICD Cybersecurity Project Proposal
Signed-off-by: Steve Taylor steve@deployhub.com

Signed-off-by: Steve Taylor <steve@deployhub.com>
@sbtaylor15 sbtaylor15 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 21, 2026 00:13
Comment thread proposals/cicd-cybersecurity/cicd-cybersecurity.md Outdated
Added Garima Bajpai to the TOC sponsors and removed Steve Taylor
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@TracyRagan TracyRagan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated Garima Bajpai in place of Steve Taylor

@mnemonic01
Copy link
Copy Markdown

I've read the proposal; good job! Very relevant. The gap it addresses is real.
A few things that I felt missing or underdeveloped:

  • Pipelines are treated as the main control surface, but in practice you also have GitOps controllers and the platform/runtime itself. That distinction isn’t really visible.
  • Using lifecycle stages alone is too limiting. Without a stable set of capabilities, the mapping to tools will stay somewhat arbitrary.
  • GitOps is not explicitly positioned, while for many environments this is the delivery model now.
  • Secrets and IAM are mentioned, but not really treated as foundational building blocks. That’s where a lot of real risk sits.
  • IaC is missing. Without reproducible infrastructure, secure delivery is hard to make auditable.
  • Policy is mentioned, but not clearly positioned as something that spans pipeline, deployment, and runtime.
  • Supply chain security is well covered in terms of concepts, but I miss a clear end-to-end flow (build → sign → verify → deploy).
  • There’s no real reflection of multi-tenant / shared platform environments, which is where many users operate.

The AI section feels a bit generic right now. Maybe for a next version, make it concrete (with actual risks/controls) or leave it out for now.
Overall, the direction is strong. Tightening the positioning will make it clearer what this proposal is (and is not), and improve adoption.

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.

4 participants