Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CKV_AZURE_171 doesn't handle property rename in AzureRM provider 4.x #6681

Open
tanadeau opened this issue Aug 24, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

CKV_AZURE_171 doesn't handle property rename in AzureRM provider 4.x #6681

tanadeau opened this issue Aug 24, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
checks Check additions or changes good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@tanadeau
Copy link

Describe the issue
CKV_AZURE_171 checks that automatic_channel_upgrade is set. However, this check fails on AzureRM provider 4.x due to the property being renamed to automatic_upgrade_channel. The check should check that both are not set or base check on version.

Examples
Should succeed with the following:

resource "azurerm_kubernetes_cluster" "this" {
   # ...
   automatic_upgrade_channel = "stable"
   # ...
}

Version (please complete the following information):

  • Checkov Version 3.2.234
@tanadeau tanadeau added the checks Check additions or changes label Aug 24, 2024
@tw-sematell
Copy link

A similar problem comes up with the container registry and CKV_AZURE_167: there is no policy block anymore but the property retention_policy_in_days.

@bo156 bo156 added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Aug 29, 2024
@bo156
Copy link
Contributor

bo156 commented Aug 29, 2024

thanks @tanadeau and @tw-sematell :)
Can I kindly suggest that you'll contribute a PR for those use-cases?
Using the community to help us keep checkov updated to the latest changes is the most efficient way to keep the policies up to date :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
checks Check additions or changes good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants