Re: OpenChain Security Assurance Reference Guide - Public Sharing - Feedback Requested
|
Mark Gisi
Hi Tak,
>> "There is no registration procedure such as in §3.6.2 of OpenChain Specification."
That is correct - conformance is obtained once an organization has satisfied all the requirements (verification materials). This is achieved by guide requirement 3.4.2.1. I can make the case that – although registration is a helpful aid, it is not a requirement for spec conformance. That is – there are no verification materials that require registration. What spec conformance validation ensures is that evidence exists for each of the verification material requirements. That is achieved by 3.6.2.1.
>> §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.
That is correct. There is no requirement to publish or make the evidence public. In fact, most will likely not choose that path. However, an organization is required to maintain digital evidence that all the requirements have been met. It is conceivable that if a supplier claims conformance, that their customer may request to see the evidence. Whether the evidence is provided to a customer is up to the negotiations between the two parties and likely subject to an NDA (assuming they agree).
Best, Mark
From: main@... <main@...>
On Behalf Of takashi1.ninjouji@...
[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address] 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.
In supply and consumption, no wonder there is more interest in SBOM.
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.
BR, Tak
差出人:
main@... <main@...>
が Mark Gisi <mark.gisi@...>
の代理で送信
Hi Tak,
>> 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 3.4.2.1 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 3.4.2.1 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.
best, Mark
Mark Gisi Empowering Engineers & Customers to Prosper using Open Source (510) 749-2016
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.
(2) 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.
Best Regards Tak
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 1:07 PM Shane Coughlan <scoughlan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
