Re: OpenChain Security Assurance Reference Guide - Public Sharing - Feedback Requested
Thanks a lot, Mark!
My understanding is getting better than before :)
>> there is no specific way to declare conformance to this guide.
I should correct my above comment because what intends the following:
"There is no registration procedure such as in §3.6.2 of OpenChain Specification."
> At this point, companies will be able to present their evidence of conformance to any
> party (e.g., key customers). It is not mandatory to make the evidence public, but it is
> possible if you choose to do so.
§3.4 of this guide corresponds to §3.6 of the OpenChain specification; if so, this clause does not necessarily mean intending to publish evidence.
I hope that the community and industry can build a consensus on the quality of SBOMs together. So, I guess it is important to discuss SBOM format, compliance workflows, and automation processes for this purpose.
差出人: main@... <main@...> が Mark Gisi <mark.gisi@...> の代理で送信
送信日時: 2021年11月3日 15:32
宛先: Takashi NINJOUJI <takashi.ninjouji@...>; Shane Coughlan <scoughlan@...>
CC: main@... <main@...>
件名: Re: [openchain] OpenChain Security Assurance Reference Guide - Public Sharing - Feedback Requested
>> there is no specific way to declare conformance to this guide. And each duration will be managed separately.
One can declare conformance with the guide. According to section 3.4.2:
ÿ 184.108.40.206 A document affirming the Program meets all the requirements of this guide, within the past 18 months of obtaining conformance validation.
Although it is true they are separate, they are highly complimentary. Once a company can gather up evidence that demonstrates that each of the requirements (verification materials) have been met including a document for verification artifact 220.127.116.11 above, one can claim conformance from the date of that document. At that point the company would be able to present evidence to any party (at their choice) to demonstrate conformance (e.g., major customer). Although it is NOT a requirement to publish the evidence – they would be capable should they choose to do so.
>> if a program already OpenChain conformant is newly this guide conformant, it may be possible to renew this guide conformant in conjunction with the subsequent OpenChain conformant.
Yes, that is very achievable. Although they each require a separate preparation and archiving of evidence (verifications materials) – they can be performed in parallel. Even if an organization achieved conformance with the spec 6 months prior to the security assurance guide, they can both be renewed in the future at the same time. There is no need to wait 18 months. An organization can choose to verify conformance annually (e.g., every January) – which represents a best practice. The 18 month requirement was included as a minimum baseline to make sure an organization keeps their evidence (i.e., their policies, procedures and documents) current.
Please let us know if you would like additional clarification.
Empowering Engineers & Customers to Prosper using Open Source
From: Takashi NINJOUJI <takashi.ninjouji@...>
[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
Hello Mark and Shane,
I'm translating §3.4 of the Security Assurance Reference Guide ("this guide") into Japanese, but I need to confirm something:
This guide focuses on security assurance and can be operated independently of the OpenChain Specification. However, there is no specific way to declare conformance to this guide. And each duration will be managed separately.
In practice, if a program already OpenChain conformant is newly this guide conformant, it may be possible to renew this guide conformant in conjunction with the subsequent OpenChain conformant.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 1:07 PM Shane Coughlan <scoughlan@...> wrote: