arXiv preprint ·
The Artifact Promotion Control Model: An Implementation Case Study. Build on Target Machines vs. Build Once and Promote Artifacts
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Artifact promotion means building the software once and moving that same built copy through the test and production environments, instead of building it again on each server. A previous treatment by the first author presented it as a control model for cloud deployment in accessible engineering prose. Part I of this paper restates the model in stricter form: the release object, the control domains a deployment crosses, the artifact-versus-environment identity distinction, source-control compromise as a control-domain question, and the regulatory controls (FedRAMP/SI-7, SOX 404, FFIEC, DO-178C, FDA 21 CFR Part 11, HIPAA, DoD IL) whose integrity and change-control requirements the model's properties meet more directly than build-on-target does. The parts of the model are each in the literature already: the build-once principle, the build/release/run split, binary authorization, separation as a supply-chain property, NIST SP 800-204D. The paper assembles them as one model, whatever form the built copy takes; states that a secret injected at build time breaks artifact identity; restates why downloading libraries at deployment time is an attack surface that grows with their number; and derives that the releasing role needs no production password. Part II is an anonymized case study of a production web application on AWS in which a release is one command and the artifact's path from upload to running fleet is autonomous. It reports 31 production rollouts timed stage by stage from the platform's records (36 s per server inside a six-minute rollout), 22 releases in the first four weeks, the application's service levels, a control table stating which controls the implementation has and which it lacks (no signature, no scan, no approval record, no verification at deploy), and the two release units the pipeline did not cover. A closing table checks each claim of Part I against that record.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
KernelZero: Co-Evolving Proposer and Coder for Continuously Improved GPU Kernel Generation
Towards Certificate-Driven Software Porting: A Self-Improving Agentic Harness for Scientific Program Optimization
Compositional Safety Failures in Harness Evolution: Identification and Runtime Monitoring
Faultless: A Program Equivalence Technique for Validating and Evaluating Neural Decompilers
On Device Agentic Operation Caches -- Classifier-Centric NL-to-Action Generation
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.