Adding security for reliable continuous delivery
summary
Built a multi-stage Docker image for the PetClinic sample and scanned both the full and “mini” images, finding about 40 issues reported by Snyk (mostly low/medium CVEs), demonstrating that multi-stage builds cut image weight but not all vulnerabilities. Configuration checks against the Docker host reveal unsafe defaults like an unencrypted daemon and exposed SSH ports. The workflow uses image scanning in CI pipelines, Docker configuration audits and RBAC/least‑privilege enforcement, plus continuous monitoring to gate deployments.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (18)
- 0:00intro
- 1:43preamble
- 2:08who is jhonnatan gil?
- 3:09agenda
- 3:40containerized applications?
- 7:23how to help on sdlc
- 13:26general challenges
- 14:33image vulnerabilities
- 16:48misconfigurations
- 20:09supply chain attacks
- 23:18identity and access management (iam)
- 25:18address on sdlc
- 27:28demo
- 42:09conclusion
- 43:55brief resume
- 44:30survey
- 44:43thank you
- 45:08references
related talks
18mContinuous Security - Building Security into your Pipelines
34mDelivering Continuous Security with Docker
18mPractical End-to-End Container Security at Scale
31mContinuous Security – integrating security into your pipelines
21mWhat is the Best Container Security Workflow for Your Organization?
46mA Security State of Mind: Continuous Security with Kubernetes
32mA Security State Of Mind: Compliance and ...
35mSecuring Containers by Breaking In