Skip to content

docs: answer EU AI Act GKE governance assessment - #1

Draft
Igor Holt (igor-holt) wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
feat/eu-ai-act-gke-governance-20260710
Draft

docs: answer EU AI Act GKE governance assessment#1
Igor Holt (igor-holt) wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
feat/eu-ai-act-gke-governance-20260710

Conversation

@igor-holt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

Answers all nine EU AI Act governance controls for the Self-Evolving Retrainer × GKE Pod Network Manager scope and adds the supporting operating records.

Decision

  • Approved: shadow/read-only evidence collection and human-reviewable change planning.
  • Not approved: active GKE mutation, production deployment, or on-chain publication.
  • Assessment status: blocked_pending_external_legal_and_production_remediation.

Control results

All nine questions now have an owner, answer, rationale, evidence references, and a residual-gap statement. Partial answers remain fail-closed rather than being converted into unsupported approvals.

Added artifacts

  • eu_ai_act_driver_upgraded_assessment.yml — answered v2.1 assessment
  • assessment-summary.json — machine-readable control status
  • risk-management-plan.md
  • data-governance-register.yml
  • incident-response-and-post-market-monitoring.md
  • decision-reproduction-requirements.md

Hard production blockers

  1. Independent legal/classification reviewer is unassigned.
  2. April 2026 critical/high security findings lack independent closure evidence.
  3. Exact GKE region/VPC/subnet/ranges and separate read-only/mutation identities are unverified.
  4. Exact model/runtime/retrieval semantic replay is incomplete.
  5. Immutable log anchoring and retention enforcement are unverified.
  6. Cloudflare production resources and secrets are unverified or placeholder-bound.
  7. Alchemy team/app access and the canonical Base contract are unverified.

This PR intentionally remains a draft. It is an engineering assessment and operating-policy change, not a legal opinion, conformity assessment, or production-activation approval.

@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-advanced-security

Copy link
Copy Markdown

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

  • The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
  • Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
  • You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request introduces comprehensive governance and compliance documentation for the Self-Evolving Retrainer and GKE Pod Network Governance system under the EU AI Act, including risk management, data governance, and incident response plans. The reviewer feedback correctly identifies that using symmetric HMAC-SHA256 signatures for evidence signing is incompatible with the planned on-chain verification on the Base network, and recommends transitioning to asymmetric ECDSA signing across the assessment configuration and risk management plan.

Important

The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.

Comment on lines +232 to +233
algorithm: HMAC-SHA256
secret_reference: GKE_EVIDENCE_HMAC_SECRET

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

Using HMAC-SHA256 (a symmetric key algorithm) for signed evidence is incompatible with public or on-chain verification (such as the Base network attestation specified in the attestation control). To verify an HMAC signature on-chain, the symmetric secret would have to be exposed, compromising its security. Consider using an asymmetric signing algorithm (e.g., ECDSA with secp256k1 or Ed25519) and referencing a private key instead of a shared HMAC secret.

    algorithm: ECDSA-secp256k1
    secret_reference: GKE_EVIDENCE_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY

| CIDR overlap or route collision | Fleet-wide enumeration and overlap test | Signed collision report | NO_GO; choose non-overlapping range | Tested |
| Pod-IP exhaustion | 80% warning / 90% critical thresholds | Utilization report and trend | Capacity plan; no autonomous expansion | Tested |
| Autopilot immutable-range misuse | Explicit action denial | Cluster-type validation | Replacement/migration plan | Tested |
| Evidence tampering | Canonical JSON, SHA-256, HMAC-SHA256, evidence-bound SETTLE | Signature verification | Reject and rotate signer if compromise suspected | Tested; signer provisioning unverified |

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

To align with the recommendation of using asymmetric cryptography for on-chain verification on the Base network, update the preventive control from HMAC-SHA256 to ECDSA.

Suggested change
| Evidence tampering | Canonical JSON, SHA-256, HMAC-SHA256, evidence-bound SETTLE | Signature verification | Reject and rotate signer if compromise suspected | Tested; signer provisioning unverified |
| Evidence tampering | Canonical JSON, SHA-256, ECDSA, evidence-bound SETTLE | Signature verification | Reject and rotate signer if compromise suspected | Tested; signer provisioning unverified |

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants