Pros & Cons: IaC Modules

This post will discuss the pros & cons of creating & using Infrastructure-as-Code/IaC Modules – based on 2 years of experience in creating and using a modular approach.

Why Modules?

Anyone who has done just a little bit of template work knows that ARM templates can get quickly get too big. Even a simple deployment, like a hub & spoke network architecture, can quickly expand out to several hundred lines without very much being added. Heck, when Microsoft first released the Cloud Adoption Framework “Enterprise Scale” example architecture, one of the ARM/JSON files was over 20,000 lines long!

The length of a template file can cause so many issues, including but definitely not limited to:

  • It becomes hard to find anything
  • Big code becomes hard code to update – one change has many unintended repercussions
  • Collaboration becomes near impossible
  • Agility is lost

One of the pain points that really annoyed one of my colleagues is that “big code” usually becomes non-standardised code; that becomes a big issue when a “service organisation” is supporting multiple clients (consulting company, managed services, Operations, or cloud centre of excellence).

Modularisation

The idea of modularisation is that commonly written code is written once as a module. That module is then referred to by other code whenever the functions of the module are required. This is nothing new – the concept of an “include” or “DLL” is very old in the computing world.

For example, I can create a Bicep/ARM/Terraform module for an Azure App Service. My module can deploy an App Service the way that I believe is correct for my “clients” and colleagues. It might even build some governance in, such as a naming standard, by automating the naming of the new resource based on some agreed naming pattern. Any customisations for the resource will be passed in as parameters, and any required values for inter-module dependencies can be passed out as outputs.

Quickly I can build out a library of modules, each deploying different resource types – now I have a module library. All I need now is code to call the modules, model dependencies, pass in parameters, and take outputs from one module and pass them in as parameters to others.

The Benefits

Quickly, the benefits appear:

  • You write less code because the code is written once and you reuse it.
  • Code is standardised. You can go from one workload to another, or one client to another, and you know how the code works.
  • Governance is built into the code. Things like naming standards are taken out of the hands of the human and written as code.
  • You have the potential to tap into new Azure features such as Template Specs.
  • Smaller code is easier to troubleshoot.
  • Breaking your code into smaller modules makes collaboration easier.

The Issues

Most of the issues are related to the fact that you have now built a software product that must be versioned and maintained. Few of us outside the development world have the know-how to do this. And quite frankly, the work is time-consuming and detracts from the work that we should be doing.

  • No matter how well you write a module, it will always require updates. There is always a new feature or a previously unknown use case that requires new code in the module.
  • New code means new versions. No matter how well you plan, new versions will change how parameters are used and will introduce breaking changes with some or all previous usage of the module.
  • Trying to create a one-size-fits-all module is hard. Azure App Services are a perfect example because there are dozens if not hundreds of different configuration options. Your code will become long.
  • The code length is compounded by code complexity. Many values require some sort of input, such as NULL. Quickly you will have if-then-elses all over your code.
  • You will have to create a code release and versioning system that must be maintained. These are skills that Ops people typically do not have.
  • Changes to code will now be slowed down. If a project needs a previously unwritten module/feature, the new code cannot be used until it goes through the software release mechanism. Now you have lost one of the key features of The Cloud: agility.

So What Is Right?

The answer is, I do not know. I know that “big code” without some optimisation is not the way forward. I think the type of micro-modularisation (one module per resource type) that we normally think of when “IaC Modules” is mentioned doesn’t work either.

One of the reasons that I’ve been working on and writing about Bicep/Azure Firewall/DevSecOps recently is to experiment with things such as the concept of modularisation. I am starting to think that, yes, the modularisation concept is what we need, but how we have implemented the module is wrong.

My biggest concern with the micro-module approach is that it actually slowed me down. I ended up spending more time trying to get the modules to run cleanly than I would have if I’d just written the code myself.

Maybe the module should be a smaller piece of code, but it shouldn’t be a read-only piece of code. Maybe it should be an example that I can take and modify to my own requirements. That’s the approach that I have used in my DevSecOps project. My Bicep code is written into smaller files, each handling a subset of the tasks. That code could easily be shared in a reference library by a “cloud centre of excellence” and a “standard workload” repo could be made available as a starting point for new projects.

Please share below if you have any thoughts on the matter.

Azure Firewall DevSecOps in Azure DevOps

In this post, I will share the details for granting the least-privilege permissions to GitHub action/DevOps pipeline service principals for a DevSecOps continuous deployment of Azure Firewall.

Quick Refresh

I wrote about the design of the solution and shared the code in my post, Enabling DevSecOps with Azure Firewall. There I explained how you could break out the code for the rules of a workload and manage that code in the repo for the workload. Realistically, you would also need to break out the gateway subnet route table user-defined route (legacy VNet-based hub) and the VNet peering connection. All the code for this is shared on GitHub – I did update the repo with some structure and with working DevOps pipelines.

This Update

There were two things I wanted to add to the design:

  • Detailed permissions for the service principal used by the workload DevOps pipeline, limiting the scope of change that is possible in the hub.
  • DevOps pipelines so I could test the above.

The Code

You’ll find 3 folders in the Bicep code now:

  • hub: This deploys a (legacy) VNet-based hub with Azure Firewall.
  • customRoles: 4 Azure custom roles are defined. This should be deployed after the hub.
  • spoke1: This contains the code to deploy a skeleton VNet-based (spoke) workload with updates that are required in the hub to connect the VNet and route ingress on-prem traffic through the firewall.

DevOps Pipelines

The hub and spoke1 folders each contain a folder called .pipelines. There you will find a .yml file to create a DevOps pipeline.

The DevOps pipeline uses Azure CLI tasks to:

  • Select the correct Azure subscription & create the resource group
  • Deploy each .bicep file.

My design uses 1 sub for the hub and 1 sub for the workload. You are not glued to this bu you would need to make modifications to how you configure the service principal permissions (below).

To use the code:

  1. Create a repo in DevOps for (1 repo) hub and for (1 repo) spoke1 and copy in the required code.
  2. Create service principals in Azure AD.
  3. Grant the service principal for hub owner rights to the hub subscription.
  4. Grant the service principal for the spoke owner rights to the spoke subscription.
  5. Create ARM service connections in DevOps settings that use the service principals. Note that the names for these service connections are referred to by azureServiceConnection in the pipeline files.
  6. Update the variables in the pipeline files with subscription IDs.
  7. Create the pipelines using the .yml files in the repos.

Don’t do anything just yet!

Service Principal Permissions

The hub service principal is simple – grant it owner rights to the hub subscription (or resource group).

The workload is where the magic happens with this DevSecOps design. The workload updates the hub suing code in the workload repo that affects the workload:

  • Ingress route from on-prem to the workload in the hub GatewaySubnet.
  • The firewall rules for the workload in the hub Azure Firewall (policy) using a rules collection group.
  • The VNet peering connection between the hub VNet and the workload VNet.

That could be deployed by the workload DevOps pipeline that is authenticated using the workload’s service principal. So that means the workload service principal must have rights over the hub.

The quick solution would be to grant contributor rights over the hub and say “we’ll manage what is done through code reviews”. However, a better practice is to limit what can be done as much as possible. That’s what I have done with the customRoles folder in my GitHub share.

Those custom roles should be modified to change the possible scope to the subscription ID (or even the resource group ID) of the hub deployment. There are 4 custom roles:

  • customRole-ArmValidateActionOperator.json: Adds the CUSTOM – ARM Deployment Operator role, allowing the ARM deployment to be monitored and updated.
  • customRole-PeeringAdmin.json: Adds the CUSTOM – Virtual Network Peering Administrator role, allowing a VNet peering connection to be created from the hub VNet.
  • customRole-RoutesAdmin.json: Adds the CUSTOM – Azure Route Table Routes Administrator role, allowing a route to be added to the GatewaySubnet route table.
  • customRole-RuleCollectionGroupsAdmin.json: Adds the CUSTOM – Azure Firewall Policy Rule Collection Group Administrator role, allowing a rules collection group to be added to an Azure Firewall Policy.

Deploy The Hub

The hub is deployed first – this is required to grant the permissions that are required by the workload’s service principal.

Grant Rights To Workload Service Principals

The service principals for all workloads will be added to an Azure AD group (Workloads Pipeline Service Principals in the above diagram). That group is nested into 4 other AAD security groups:

  • Resource Group ARM Operations: This is granted the CUSTOM – ARM Deployment Operator role on the hub resource group.
  • Hub Firewall Policy: This is granted the CUSTOM – Azure Firewall Policy Rule Collection Group Administrator role on the Azure Firewalll Policy that is associated with the hub Azure Firewall.
  • Hub Routes: This is granted the CUSTOM – Azure Route Table Routes Administrator role on the GattewaySubnet route table.
  • Hub Peering: This is granted the CUSTOM – Virtual Network Peering Administrator role on the hub virtual network.

Deploy The Workload

The workload now has the required permissions to deploy the workload and make modifications in the hub to connect the hub to the outside world.

Enabling DevSecOps with Azure Firewall

In this post, I will share how you can implement DevSecOps with Azure Firewall, with links to a bunch of working Bicep files to deploy the infrastructure-as-code (IaC) templates.

This example uses a “legacy” hub and spoke – one where the hub is VNet-based and not based on Azure Virtual WAN Hub. I’ll try to find some time to work on the code for that one.

The Concept

Hold on, because there’s a bunch of things to understand!

DevSecOps

The DevSecOps methodology is more than just IaC. It’s a combination of people, processes, and technology to enable a fail-fast agile delivery of workloads/applications to the business. I discussed here how DevSecOps can be used to remove the friction of IT to deliver on the promises of the Cloud.

The Azure features that this design is based on are discussed in concept here. The idea is that we want to enable Devs/Ops/Security to manage firewall rules in the workload’s Git repository (repo). This breaks the traditional model where the rules are located in a central location. The important thing is not the location of the rules, but the processes that manage the rules (change control through Git repo pull request reviews) and who (the reviewers, including the architects, firewall admins, security admins, etc).

So what we are doing is taking the firewall rules for the workload and placing them in with the workload’s code. NSG rules are probably already there. Now, we’re putting the Azure Firewall rules for the workload in the workload repo too. This is all made possible thanks to changes that were made to Azure Firewall Policy (Azure Firewall Manager) Rules Collection Groups – I use one Rules Collection Group for each workload and all the rules that enable that workload are placed in that Rules Collection Group. No changes will make it to the trunk branch (deployment action/pipelines look for changes here to trigger a deployment) without approval by all the necessary parties – this means that the firewall admins are still in control, but they don’t necessarily need to write the rules themselves … and the devs/operators might even write the rules, subject to review!

This is the killer reason to choose Azure Firewall over NVAs – the ability to not only deploy the firewall resource, but to manage the entire configuration and rule sets as code, and to break that all out in a controlled way to make the enterprise more agile.

Other Bits

If you’ve read my posts on Azure routing (How to Troubleshoot Azure Routing? and BGP with Microsoft Azure Virtual Networks & Firewalls) then you’ll understand that there’s more going on than just firewall rules. Packets won’t magically flow through your firewall just because it’s in the middle of your diagram!

The spoke or workload will also need to deploy:

  • A peering connection to the hub, enabling connectivity with the hub and the firewall. All traffic leaving the spoke will route through the firewall thanks to a user-defined route in the spoke subnet route table. Peering is a two-way connection. The workload will include some bicep to deploy the spoke-hub and the hub-spoke connections.
  • A route for the GatewaySubnet route table in the hub. This is required to route traffic to the spoke address prefix(es) through the Azure Firewall so on-premises>spoke traffic is correctly inspected and filtered by the firewall.

The IaC

In this section, I’ll explain the code layout and placement.

My Code

You can find my public repo, containing all the Bicep code here. Please feel free to download and use.

The Git Repo Design

You will have two Git repos:

  1. The first repo is for the hub. This repo will contain the code for the hub, including:
    • The hub VNet.
    • The Hub VNet Gateway.
    • The GatewaySubnet Route Table.
    • The Azure Firewall.
    • The Azure Firewall Policy that manages the Azure Firewall.
  2. The second repo is for the spoke. This skeleton example workload contains:

Action/Pipeline Permissions

I have written a more detailed update on this section, which can be found here

Each Git repo needs to authenticate with Azure to deploy/modify resources. Each repo should have a service principal in Azure AD. That service principal will be used to authenticate the deployment, executed by a GitHub action or a DevOps pipeline. You should restrict what rights the service principal will require. I haven’t worked out the exact minimum permissions, but the high-level requirements are documented below:

 

Trunk Branch Protection &  Pull Request

Some of you might be worried now – what’s to stop a developer/operator working on Workload A from accidentally creating rules that affect Workload X?

This is exactly why you implement standard practices on the Git repos:

  • Protect the Trunk branch: This means that no one can just update the version of the code that is deployed to your firewall or hub. If you want to create an updated, you have to create a branch of the trunk, make your edits in that trunk, and submit the changes to be merged into trunk as a pull request.
  • Enable pull request reviews: Select a panel of people that will review changes that are submitted as pull requests to the trunk. In our scenario, this should include the firewall admin(s), security admin(s), network admin(s), and maybe the platform & workload architects.

Now, I can only submit a suggested set of rules (and route/peering) changes that must be approved by the necessary people. I can still create my code without delay, but a change control and rollback process has taken control. Obviously, this means that there should be SLAs on the review/approval process and guidance on pull request, approval, and rejection actions.

And There You Have It

Now you have the design and the Bicep code to enable DevSecOps with Azure Firewall.