1. Threat Model

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Threat Model

A complete treatment of Threat Model contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Threat Model

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Threat Model

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Threat Model is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Threat Model

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Threat Model is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Threat Model

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Threat Model

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Threat Model

Operations Note for Threat Model

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Threat Model is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

2. Assets and Attack Surfaces

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Assets and Attack Surfaces

A complete treatment of Assets and Attack Surfaces contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Assets and Attack Surfaces

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Assets and Attack Surfaces

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Assets and Attack Surfaces is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Assets and Attack Surfaces

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Assets and Attack Surfaces is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Assets and Attack Surfaces

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Assets and Attack Surfaces

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Assets and Attack Surfaces

Operations Note for Assets and Attack Surfaces

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Assets and Attack Surfaces is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

3. Inventory Risks

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Inventory Risks

A complete treatment of Inventory Risks contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Inventory Risks

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Inventory Risks

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Inventory Risks is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Inventory Risks

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Inventory Risks is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Inventory Risks

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Inventory Risks

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Inventory Risks

Operations Note for Inventory Risks

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Inventory Risks is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

4. Credential Risks

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Credential Risks

A complete treatment of Credential Risks contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Credential Risks

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Credential Risks

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Credential Risks is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Credential Risks

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Credential Risks is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Credential Risks

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Credential Risks

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Credential Risks

Operations Note for Credential Risks

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Credential Risks is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

5. Privilege Escalation

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Privilege Escalation

A complete treatment of Privilege Escalation contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Privilege Escalation

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Privilege Escalation

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Privilege Escalation is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Privilege Escalation

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Privilege Escalation is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Privilege Escalation

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Privilege Escalation

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Privilege Escalation

Operations Note for Privilege Escalation

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Privilege Escalation is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

6. Secrets and Vault

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Secrets and Vault

A complete treatment of Secrets and Vault contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Secrets and Vault

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Secrets and Vault

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Secrets and Vault is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Secrets and Vault

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Secrets and Vault is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Secrets and Vault

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Secrets and Vault

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Secrets and Vault

Operations Note for Secrets and Vault

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Secrets and Vault is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

7. No-log and Diff Risks

Deep Dive and Submission Example for No-log and Diff Risks

A complete treatment of No-log and Diff Risks contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for No-log and Diff Risks

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for No-log and Diff Risks

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, No-log and Diff Risks is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of No-log and Diff Risks

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, No-log and Diff Risks is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for No-log and Diff Risks

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for No-log and Diff Risks

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for No-log and Diff Risks

Operations Note for No-log and Diff Risks

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

No-log and Diff Risks is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

8. Supply Chain

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Supply Chain

A complete treatment of Supply Chain contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Supply Chain

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Supply Chain

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Supply Chain is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Supply Chain

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Supply Chain is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Supply Chain

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Supply Chain

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Supply Chain

Operations Note for Supply Chain

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Supply Chain is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

9. Collections and Roles

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Collections and Roles

A complete treatment of Collections and Roles contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Collections and Roles

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Collections and Roles

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Collections and Roles is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Collections and Roles

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Collections and Roles is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Collections and Roles

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Collections and Roles

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Collections and Roles

Operations Note for Collections and Roles

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Collections and Roles is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

10. CI Security

Deep Dive and Submission Example for CI Security

A complete treatment of CI Security contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for CI Security

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for CI Security

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, CI Security is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of CI Security

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, CI Security is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for CI Security

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for CI Security

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for CI Security

Operations Note for CI Security

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

CI Security is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

11. AWX/AAP RBAC

Deep Dive and Submission Example for AWX/AAP RBAC

A complete treatment of AWX/AAP RBAC contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for AWX/AAP RBAC

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for AWX/AAP RBAC

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, AWX/AAP RBAC is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of AWX/AAP RBAC

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, AWX/AAP RBAC is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for AWX/AAP RBAC

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for AWX/AAP RBAC

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for AWX/AAP RBAC

Operations Note for AWX/AAP RBAC

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

AWX/AAP RBAC is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

12. Execution Environments

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Execution Environments

A complete treatment of Execution Environments contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Execution Environments

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Execution Environments

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Execution Environments is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Execution Environments

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Execution Environments is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Execution Environments

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Execution Environments

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Execution Environments

Operations Note for Execution Environments

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Execution Environments is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

13. Windows and Network Automation

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Windows and Network Automation

A complete treatment of Windows and Network Automation contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Windows and Network Automation

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Windows and Network Automation

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Windows and Network Automation is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Windows and Network Automation

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Windows and Network Automation is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Windows and Network Automation

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Windows and Network Automation

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Windows and Network Automation

Operations Note for Windows and Network Automation

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Windows and Network Automation is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

14. Incident Response

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Incident Response

A complete treatment of Incident Response contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Incident Response

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Incident Response

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Incident Response is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Incident Response

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Incident Response is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Incident Response

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Incident Response

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Incident Response

Operations Note for Incident Response

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Incident Response is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

15. Security Checklist

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Security Checklist

A complete treatment of Security Checklist contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Security Checklist

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Security Checklist

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Security Checklist is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Security Checklist

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Security Checklist is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Security Checklist

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Security Checklist

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Security Checklist

Operations Note for Security Checklist

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Security Checklist is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

Sources and Further References

• Official Ansible Community Documentation: https://docs.ansible.com/
• Ansible Getting Started: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/getting_started/index.html
• Inventory Guide: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/inventory_guide/index.html
• Playbook Guide: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/playbook_guide/index.html
• Module Index: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/ansible/builtin/index.html
• Vault Guide: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/vault_guide/index.html
• Ansible Lint: https://ansible.readthedocs.io/projects/lint/
• Molecule: https://ansible.readthedocs.io/projects/molecule/
• AWX: https://github.com/ansible/awx
• Red Hat Certifications: https://www.redhat.com/en/services/certifications