One of the proposed solutions for package verification is to use OMNIBor identifiers for verification purposes (see PR #602 <https://github.com/spdx/spdx-3-model/pull/602> for documentation on this approach).
Since it relates to identifiers, I thought it might be useful to review the recently release paper on identifiers from CISA <https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Software-Identification-Ec osystem-Option-Analysis-508c.pdf> - there is a request for comment. Note that the goal of the paper seems focused on the correlation of package artifacts with vulnerability management systems. There are other use cases which don't seem to be considered (or at least mentioned) in the paper. A few things I noticed while scanning the paper related to the verification code discussion: * It sadly doesn't reference Software Heritage ID's, which I personally think is a well thought through identifier scheme. I wonder how SWHID's compare with OmniBOR in terms of some of the issues raised in the paper. * No mention of using the identifiers for verification purpose, although there is a mention of "Inherent Identifiers" whose properties include the ability to verify * One of the criteria is "grouping" - which is stated to be unsolved at this point * Section 2.5 "Path 5: Unidentified Software Descriptor to Augment Paths 2, 3, and 4" describes a path which seems quite implementable using our current SPDX 3.0 model Gary -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5490): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/5490 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/103815753/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
