<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Workloads on Le Site de François</title><link>https://lesitedefrancois.be/en/tags/workloads/</link><description>Recent content in Workloads on Le Site de François</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>© 2026 François</copyright><atom:link href="https://lesitedefrancois.be/en/tags/workloads/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>PSA (Pod Security Admission)</title><link>https://lesitedefrancois.be/en/security/psa/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://lesitedefrancois.be/en/security/psa/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pod Security Admission (PSA)&lt;/strong&gt; is the built-in Kubernetes admission controller that enforces the &lt;strong&gt;Pod Security Standards (PSS)&lt;/strong&gt;, a set of predefined security profiles that constrain what a pod is allowed to do. It became stable in Kubernetes 1.25, at which point its predecessor &lt;strong&gt;PodSecurityPolicy (PSP)&lt;/strong&gt; was simultaneously removed. Where PSP was a complex, cluster-scoped object requiring deep RBAC wiring and prone to misconfiguration, PSA is deliberately simpler: it is always enabled, requires no CRDs or RBAC setup, and is configured entirely through namespace labels. The trade-off for that simplicity is that PSA is opinionated and coarse-grained — it enforces fixed profiles rather than arbitrary custom rules, and its granularity is the namespace rather than the individual workload or service account. Teams needing finer-grained policy beyond what PSA offers typically combine it with a policy engine such as Kyverno or OPA Gatekeeper.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>SCC (Security Context Constraints)</title><link>https://lesitedefrancois.be/en/security/scc/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://lesitedefrancois.be/en/security/scc/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Security Context Constraints (SCCs)&lt;/strong&gt; are OpenShift&amp;rsquo;s mechanism for controlling and enforcing the security posture of pods at admission time. They predate and are more expressive than Kubernetes &lt;strong&gt;PSA&lt;/strong&gt;: where PSA validates a pod spec against a fixed profile and either admits or rejects it, an SCC acts as both a validator &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a mutator — it can inject missing fields into the pod spec (a UID from the namespace&amp;rsquo;s allocated range, an SELinux context, capability drops) so that a pod that did not specify its full security context in its manifest is brought into compliance automatically rather than rejected. SCCs are cluster-scoped resources, and access to them is controlled via RBAC: a service account must be granted &lt;code&gt;use&lt;/code&gt; of an SCC through a &lt;code&gt;Role&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;ClusterRole&lt;/code&gt; binding before pods running under that service account can be admitted with the permissions that SCC grants.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>