Naming is not an issue within SBOM’s so long as the Supplier Name is unique.
An SBOM includes a unique product identifier by combining Supplier Name + Package Name + Package Version Each supplier maintains their own unique product name and version namespace. This works perfectly if the Supplier Name is guaranteed to be unique and each supplier manages the uniqueness of their product namespaces. Thanks, Dick Brooks Active Member of the CISA Critical Manufacturing Sector, Sector Coordinating Council – A Public-Private Partnership <https://reliableenergyanalytics.com/products> Never trust software, always verify and report! ™ <http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com/> http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com Email: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Tel: +1 978-696-1788 From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Venkat Ramakrishnan Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 6:33 AM To: Gary O'Neall <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [spdx-tech] CISA document on identifiers Hi Gary, I'm currently going through the CISA document and noting down my observations. Although the commenting period is over, I was asked to give my feedback on the document by one of the CISA's members. If you or anyone else are interested in looking into this further and potentially give our feedback from SPDX perspective, I am willing to work with them. Naming is so important, and as I understand, it is a major blocking factor for SBOMs/VEXs from being adopted (at least quickly. Otherwise, it may take several years is what I heard). So, it would be worthwhile to spend some time on this. Thanks & Best Regards, Venkat. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> www.avg.com On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:03 AM Gary O'Neall <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: 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-Ecosystem-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 (#5581): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/5581 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
