Removed the recommendations and action items based on the request fro…

…m Mr Knight self-assessment.md

After discussing with the team, we have decided to remove the Recommendations and Action Items based on the suggestions by Mr Knight. We are trying our best to posit our points and analysis to the maintainers of Longhorn and we feel it would be appropriate to discuss these points on their communication channel instead of document them on a security self assessment. Thank you for making this request

Signed-off-by: Makesh Srinivasan <[email protected]>

assessments/projects/longhorn/self-assessment.md

@@ -314,13 +314,6 @@ Longhorn operates as a persistent volume provider for Kubernetes, managing the s
 | Audit and Logging              | Lack of incident visibility or forensics     | Enable detailed logging, integrate with monitoring tools               | [Kubernetes Logging Architecture](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/logging/) |
 
 
-### Recommendations
-
-- Implement Regular Security Audits and Updates: The Longhorn project should regularly audit its codebase and dependencies for security vulnerabilities and apply updates or patches promptly. This includes staying updated with Kubernetes developments and ensuring compatibility and security with its latest versions. This can avert any threats that may arise from using older versions with discovered threats and vulnerabilites.
-- Strengthen Data Encryption Practices: While Longhorn already supports volume encryption and encrypted communication between components, the project could explore enhancing encryption practices. This might include implementing more robust encryption algorithms, offering more customization options for encryption settings, and ensuring encryption best practices across all data transactions and storage.
-- Conduct Periodic Third-Party Security Reviews and Penetration Testing: Engaging with external security experts to conduct thorough security reviews and penetration testing can help uncover vulnerabilities that internal audits might miss. This external review can provide an additional layer of assurance about the project's security posture.
-
-
 ### Conclusion
 
 - Critical findings should be promptly disclosed to the community.
@@ -420,40 +413,4 @@ Related Projects / Vendors
 * Prospective users are interested in differences in performance, scalability, ease of use, and specific features like snapshotting and backup/restore capabilities.
 * For more on related projects and vendors, see: [Related Projects / Vendors](https://www.cncf.io/projects/longhorn/).
 
-
-## Action Items
-* Enhanced Encryption Key Management:
-  - Implement a more robust key management system for volume encryption, including regular key rotation and automated key lifecycle management.
-  - Explore integration with enterprise-grade key management solutions for better security and compliance.
-* Acquire a CII badge. While Longhorn is actively working towards meeting the CII Best Practices criteria, it is yet to acquire a badge.
-* Active participation in Longhorn’s community forums to present your assessment and solicit feedback. We will continue to utilise Longhorn's community channels (like [Slack](https://slack.cncf.io/) [channels](https://cloud-native.slack.com/messages/longhorn) or forums) to engage in discussions, ensuring a broader reach and diverse perspectives.
-* Advanced Replication Monitoring and Anomaly Detection:
-  - Develop and integrate advanced monitoring tools specifically for replication processes, capable of detecting anomalies and potential synchronization issues.
-  - Implement automated alerts and triggers for immediate response to replication integrity threats.
-* Snapshot Integrity Verification:
-  - Develop a feature to verify the integrity of snapshots both during creation and restoration.
-  - Implement checksums or cryptographic hash validation to ensure snapshot data has not been tampered with or corrupted.
-* Proactive Health Check Enhancements:
-  - Integrate machine learning algorithms to predict potential failures or issues based on historical data and trends.
-  - Enhance existing health checks to include predictive maintenance alerts.
-
-<details>
-<summary>Questions or Gaps for Further Exploration</summary>
-
-* Scalability of Security Measures:
-  - How does the existing security infrastructure scale with increasing data and user load?
-  - Is there a need for scalability improvements to handle larger deployments? Has there been any issues regarding this in the past?
-* Third-Party Dependency Security:
-  - How are the security aspects of third-party dependencies managed?
-  - Is there a process for regular security audits of these dependencies?
-* User Education and Best Practices:
-  - Are there sufficient resources and documentation available to guide users in best security practices?
-  - Is there an opportunity to enhance user education regarding Longhorn's security features?
-* Compliance with Emerging Data Protection Regulations:
-  - How well is Longhorn prepared to comply with emerging global data protection and privacy regulations?
-  - Are there any specific compliance areas that need to be addressed or improved?
-* Integration with Cloud-Native Security Tools:
-  - How effectively does Longhorn integrate with existing cloud-native security tools and ecosystems?
-  - Is there scope for deeper integration to enhance security synergies?
-* Additionally, we have reached out to the maintainers for details regarding the Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for Longhorn, as our searches did not yield this information. For the time being, we have generated an SBOM but it is yet to be verified by the maintainers of Longhorn
-</details>
+<hr>