Skip to content

docs: Kubernetes hardening #7846

Open
ppawlowski wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
docs-k8s-hardening
Open

docs: Kubernetes hardening #7846
ppawlowski wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
docs-k8s-hardening

Conversation

@ppawlowski

@ppawlowski ppawlowski commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

This pull request introduces the Hardening page in the FlowFuse documentation with the Kubernetes platform hardening guides.

Related Issue(s)

Closes https://github.com/FlowFuse/engineering/issues/113

Checklist

  • I have read the contribution guidelines
  • Suitable unit/system level tests have been added and they pass
  • Documentation has been updated
    • Upgrade instructions
    • Configuration details
    • Concepts
  • Changes flowforge.yml?
    • Issue/PR raised on FlowFuse/helm to update ConfigMap Template
    • Issue/PR raised on FlowFuse/CloudProject to update values for Staging/Production
  • Link to Changelog Entry PR, or note why one is not needed.

Labels

  • Includes a DB migration? -> add the area:migration label

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 75.21%. Comparing base (00b8d9c) to head (3aa6a59).
⚠️ Report is 26 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
forge/setup.js 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7846      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.10%   75.21%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         430      432       +2     
  Lines       22844    22973     +129     
  Branches     6054     6090      +36     
==========================================
+ Hits        17157    17280     +123     
- Misses       5687     5693       +6     
Flag Coverage Δ
backend 75.21% <0.00%> (+0.11%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@ppawlowski
ppawlowski marked this pull request as ready for review July 20, 2026 18:13

@allthedoll allthedoll left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I made some suggestions based on my limited knowledge. LMK if you agree to add them, and then we might also consider updating the yml with the UDP/TCP port information.

Network Policies let you enforce the principle of least privilege at the network layer: a pod should only be able to talk to the workloads it genuinely needs. Restricting traffic contains lateral movement, so a breach in one component cannot trivially spread to others.

{% warning %}
**Do not treat the policies below as a copy-and-paste solution.** They are illustrative examples, tied to the assumptions of the environment they were written for - namespace names, the ingress controller, the CNI, service ports, which components are deployed, and where operators live. Applied blindly they will either break platform traffic or leave gaps you believe are closed. Network Policies are one of the easiest things in Kubernetes to get subtly wrong: a rule that *looks* correct can silently drop traffic (wrong port direction, Service vs pod port, a missing return path) or silently allow it (an unenforced CNI, an overly broad selector). Implement them deliberately, with a working understanding of how traffic actually flows in your cluster - pod-to-pod, cross-namespace, ingress, egress, and DNS. Roll out one policy at a time, start in a non-production environment, verify each addition against real traffic (and check the affected pods' logs and Service endpoints), and confirm your CNI actually enforces policies before relying on them for security.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

do not treat the policies as a copy-and-paste solution

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to cover ourselves

Comment thread docs/admin/hardening/kubernetes.md Outdated
Comment thread docs/admin/hardening/kubernetes.md
ppawlowski and others added 2 commits July 24, 2026 16:52
Co-authored-by: Jamie Strusz <5758031+allthedoll@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Jamie Strusz <5758031+allthedoll@users.noreply.github.com>
@ppawlowski
ppawlowski requested a review from allthedoll July 24, 2026 14:54
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.

2 participants