s.spdx.org>
Subject: Re: [spdx] Congress is considering removing the SBOM provision from
the NDAA Bill now before Congress
Why? GSA is already specifying SBOMs. And is the list to encourage
congressional lobbying?
On 16.12.22 20:38, Dick Brooks wrote:
FYI:
Please get the word out to r
cs.com/products>* ™
>
> http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com
>
> Email: d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com
>
> Tel: +1 978-696-1788
>
>
>
> *From:* spdx@lists.spdx.org *On Behalf Of *Eliot
> Lear
> *Sent:* Friday, December 16, 2022 4:13 PM
> *To:* spdx@list
tics.com>
Tel: +1 978-696-1788
From: spdx@lists.spdx.org On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 4:13 PM
To: spdx@lists.spdx.org
Subject: Re: [spdx] Congress is considering removing the SBOM provision from
the NDAA Bill now before Congress
Why? GSA is already specify
Why? GSA is already specifying SBOMs. And is the list to encourage
congressional lobbying?
On 16.12.22 20:38, Dick Brooks wrote:
FYI:
Please get the word out to restore the SBOM provision in the NDAA.
“I don't see why any member of Congress would want to hamstring their
own cybersecurity
FYI:
Please get the word out to restore the SBOM provision in the NDAA.
"I don't see why any member of Congress would want to hamstring their own
cybersecurity professionals from monitoring and mitigating software
vulnerabilities that are detectable using an SBOM. Members of Congress
pleas
