Project 9: Pod Security and Policy-as-Code Enforcement
Implement a phased policy rollout that enforces secure workload defaults without breaking delivery.
Quick Reference
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Difficulty | Advanced |
| Time Estimate | 8-14 hours |
| Main Programming Language | YAML policy + shell |
| Alternative Programming Languages | Rego, CEL, Go |
| Coolness Level | Level 3 - Security-Forward Platforming |
| Business Potential | 4. Compliance Accelerator |
| Prerequisites | Pod Security Standards, admission concepts, RBAC basics |
| Key Topics | policy rollout, violation remediation, exception governance |
1. Learning Objectives
- Enforce baseline/restricted policy profiles safely.
- Measure policy impact on delivery workflows.
- Build exception workflow with ownership and expiry.
- Align policy controls to realistic threat scenarios.
2. All Theory Needed (Per-Concept Breakdown)
2.1 Pod Security Standards and Admission
Fundamentals
Pod Security Standards define escalating security posture levels. Admission controls enforce these profiles at namespace/workload boundaries.
Deep Dive into the concept
Policy rollout should be staged: audit, warn, enforce. Immediate hard enforcement without migration planning causes platform outages. A mature approach classifies violations by risk and remediation complexity, then prioritizes fixes before enforcement. Policy coverage should be explicit: pod privilege, host namespace sharing, hostPath usage, runAsNonRoot, and privilege escalation controls.
2.2 Exception Governance and Drift Control
Fundamentals
Exceptions are necessary but must be tightly governed.
Deep Dive into the concept
Every exception should include owner, risk rationale, expiry, and review date. Permanent exceptions become hidden attack paths. Automated reporting on exception count and age is a strong governance signal.
3. Project Specification
3.1 What You Will Build
A policy rollout package with:
- audit and enforce profiles
- remediation guidance
- exception lifecycle controls
3.2 Functional Requirements
- Scan workloads for profile violations.
- Produce prioritized remediation report.
- Enforce policy in selected namespaces.
- Track and expire policy exceptions.
3.3 Non-Functional Requirements
- Performance: policy checks add minimal deploy latency.
- Reliability: violations reported consistently.
- Usability: actionable remediation messages.
3.7 Real World Outcome
$ ./policy-lab scan --namespace payments
violations:
privileged: 2
hostPath: 1
runAsNonRoot-missing: 3
$ ./policy-lab enforce --namespace payments
result: 0 compliant deploy failures
result: 3 violating deploys blocked with remediation guidance
4. Solution Architecture
4.1 High-Level Design
policy definitions -> audit scanner -> enforcement gate -> exception registry -> reporting
4.2 Key Components
| Component | Responsibility | Key Decisions |
|---|---|---|
| Scanner | detect violations | risk-prioritized output |
| Enforcement gate | block non-compliant workloads | phased rollout model |
| Exception registry | manage approved exceptions | expiry and ownership required |
| Reporter | governance metrics | trend analysis over time |
5. Implementation Guide
5.3 The Core Question You’re Answering
“How do we enforce secure defaults at scale while preserving delivery flow and accountability?”
5.6 Milestones
- Audit mode scan and violation baseline.
- Remediation fixes for top risks.
- Namespace-level enforcement.
- Exception governance and reporting.
5.9 Definition of Done
- Baseline/restricted controls applied in at least one namespace.
- Violation report includes remediation guidance.
- Exception workflow includes owner + expiry.
- Security and delivery impact metrics collected.