lme-nca

The problem here is this code https://github.com/DefectDojo/django-DefectDojo/pull/9050/files#diff-bddc671a2a14e2e86ce08a054df3119895196fa892d84ab71fdd8ca1b50caadaR259 Currently the default behaviour is to just "mitigate" a finding if the scanner sets risk acceptance (or false_p or out of scope). It...

dont have a nice way to create this here in this text, so just a screenshot. This is roughly how the logic works now, in: https://github.com/DefectDojo/django-DefectDojo/pull/9050/commits/d3d918b7375c43322d2971e36ff6944b5c8d1d35

@coheigea @Gby56 @mtesauro @blakeaowens : this pull request is now ready for review, would appreciate some feedback

Reminder to: @Gby56 @mtesauro @blakeaowens this pull request is still here, we have been running it on our fork for the last 3 weeks and it seems stable.

Just giving this another bump.... @mtesauro @blakeaowens @Maffooch

Hey everyone, this is still here.... @mtesauro @blakeaowens @Maffooch Willing to fix the conflict if there is still interest to merge this ?

@mtesauro @Gby56 @coheigea @Maffooch : I have rebased this change on the latest state and introduced a similar fix. If an existing finding is risk accepted then we avoid it...

> @lme-nca Sorry that this one has gotten lost in the shuffle for so long. > > Would you mind rebasing this so we can review and approve it? Hi...

I disagree first of all the IP of a POD is anything but static (nor are static IPs in kubernetes really advisable/good practice) , nor easy to determine through a...

Hi @kiblik thanks for reconsidering, if you want you can reopen the pull request https://github.com/DefectDojo/django-DefectDojo/pull/9508 and I would rebase it and check that is still passes the tests. I could...