|
| 1 | +# Digital Sovereignty and SCS certification |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## The taxonomy of digital sovereignty |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +As published in [DuD](https://rdcu.be/cWdBJ) (German, English version in |
| 6 | +[the cloud report](https://the-report.cloud/why-digital-sovereignty-is-more-than-mere-legal-compliance/)) |
| 7 | +and being summarized nicely in a [cloudahead article](https://www.cloudahead.de/der-freiheitskampf-des-sovereign-cloud-stacks), |
| 8 | +we differentiate between several levels of digital sovereignty. |
| 9 | +We'll skip stage 0, introduced by Gregor Schuhmacher in his description, which |
| 10 | +specifies using a cloud at all as the pre-step to be taken. This has relevance, |
| 11 | +as some companies continue to call solutions that are not on-demand, not |
| 12 | +self-service API driven, not metered |
| 13 | +(see [NIST definition of cloud](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf)) |
| 14 | +to be (private) clouds. We talk about real clouds, where deployment of infrastructure |
| 15 | +is API-driven, unlocking DevOps teams productivity. |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +The levels as seen by the SCS movement are: |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +1. Control over data and data sharing and ability to fulfill regulatory requirements (GDPR) |
| 20 | +2. Capability to chose between *highly compatible* operators, this way enabling a provider |
| 21 | + switch or using several providers in a federated fashion. This also includes the |
| 22 | + possibility to run your infrastructure in a *highly compatible* manner. |
| 23 | +3. Capability to influence and shape the infrastructure, enabling innovation at the |
| 24 | + infrastructure layer. |
| 25 | +4. Transparency over operational aspects of running infrastructure, this way supporting |
| 26 | + to overcome a skill gap to being able to operate infrastructure in a highly reliable |
| 27 | + manner. |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +These aspects of sovereignty drive the work from the SCS team. |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +Level number 1 is sometimes referred to as "data sovereignty". Achieving it does require |
| 32 | +cloud infrastructure and cloud operations that can not be interfered with by actors that |
| 33 | +are outside of the respective jurisdiction. For Europeans that need to observe GDPR, this |
| 34 | +excludes using US clouds for personally identifiable information, expecting that the |
| 35 | +adequacy decisions for the US do not fully address the risks. The SCS project does not |
| 36 | +have deep legal expertise and refers to the work from [noyb](https://noyb.eu/) |
| 37 | +and [ENISA](https://www.enisa.europa.eu/) here. |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +In order to achieve level 2, |
| 40 | +the SCS community has worked on standards that define the APIs and the infrastructure |
| 41 | +behavior, so application developers and application operators can deploy the same application |
| 42 | +using the same automation and rely on the same infrastructure behavior to operate the |
| 43 | +application in a resilient way. The standards allow for switching providers or to use |
| 44 | +several providers in a federated way. Operating own infrastructure according to the same |
| 45 | +standards is also possible, allowing for hybrid cloud setups without technical barriers. |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +Level 3 drives the work on a comprehensive openly developed open source software stack, |
| 48 | +allowing operators to use, study, change and redistribute the software according to the |
| 49 | +[Four Freedoms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition) of free software. We are requiring |
| 50 | +a complete stack that uses real open source licenses (as defined by [OSI](https://opensource.org/)) |
| 51 | +as to ensure that users have the four freedoms, the right to use, study, modify, (re)distribute |
| 52 | +the software that drives the cloud stack. To ensure that this does not require extensive |
| 53 | +and expensive forking, we further require the [Four Opens](https://openinfra.dev/four-opens/) |
| 54 | +of the Open Infra Foundation here. The software can be used to provide cloud services |
| 55 | +for others (public cloud) or just for your own community (community cloud) or |
| 56 | +internal (private cloud) needs. |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +Level 4 addresses the skills and transparency aspects. Operating highly dynamic distributed |
| 59 | +systems in a reliable manner requires knowledge and experience - engineers with these skills |
| 60 | +are scarce. To address this, the SCS team networks operations staff from providers and helps |
| 61 | +to share and distill common knowledge that help everyone to be more successful. SCS has |
| 62 | +thus been driving the [Open Operations](https://openoperations.org) initiative. |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +Levels 2 and 3 are sometimes related to the term "technological sovereignty", indicating |
| 65 | +that the ability to control and shape the technology. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +## The SCS certification levels |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +Corresponding to the levels of digital sovereignty in the SCS taxonomy, SCS defines |
| 70 | +SCS certification levels |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +1. (Defined outside of the SCS scope) |
| 73 | +2. SCS-compatible |
| 74 | +3. SCS-open |
| 75 | +4. SCS-sovereign |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +### Why no SCS certification for GDPR? |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +SCS significantly lowers the bar to offer real cloud services. These can be used internally |
| 80 | +(private cloud) or to offer services for your community, your region or country. The vision |
| 81 | +is to have a network of providers. We expect most if not all of them to be operated in ways |
| 82 | +that fulfill the European GDPR regulation; it is also possible to operate clouds that fulfill |
| 83 | +special regulation, e.g. in the banking or insurance sector. |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +SCS is not in a position to judge this and thus defines no own label / certificate to |
| 86 | +vouch for regulatory compliance. We typically refer to the ENISA for GDPR considerations |
| 87 | +and also recommend to take the Gaia-X labels into account here. |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +## Status of SCS certification for cloud operators |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +As of September 2024, we have not yet formalized the requirements for SCS-open and SCS-sovereign |
| 92 | +certification. |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | +The technical compatibility validation corresponding to the SCS-compatible certification does |
| 95 | +exist since more than a year. There are certificates for two layers of the SCS architecture |
| 96 | +stack: |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +* The virtualization layer: SCS-compatible IaaS |
| 99 | +* The container layer: SCS-compatible KaaS |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +For each of these, technical tests are being run to test service offerings for compliance. |
| 102 | +The standards and the corresponding tests are versioned. The SCS-compatible certification |
| 103 | +for a specific layer (currently IaaS or KaaS) and version is called a *certification scope*. |
| 104 | +Please see [Scopes and Versions](scopes-versions.md) for detailed definitions. |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +As of September 2024, the latest SCS-compatible certification scope on the IaaS layer is |
| 107 | +SCS-compatible IaaS v4. For November 2024, SCS-compatible IaaS v5 and the first Kaas |
| 108 | +scope SCS-compatible KaaS v1 are planned. |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +## Certification for non-operators |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +Software can deliver infrastructure components for operators to provide SCS-compatible |
| 113 | +IaaS or KaaS; it is planned that infrastructure software can also receive SCS certification. |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +Likewise, applications can be developed in a way that they will work without any changes on |
| 116 | +all SCS-compatible IaaS or on all SCS-compatible KaaS (or may require both). It is planned |
| 117 | +that such software can also be certified. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +Implementation partners from the SCS ecosystem may support operators (CSPs) to build |
| 120 | +and operate SCS-compatible infrastructure. A certification program that certifies the |
| 121 | +skills and experience of such partners is planned as well. |
0 commit comments