Hi Dick, Your inputs are valid but come with a lot of IFs. It is tough to follow-through and enforce if the suppliers are doing the right thing. Even with a standard, it would be difficult, but CISA's document talks about reward and penalty for not implementing the naming standard, which is some hope.
If we work in SBOM silos, naming may not be a big deal, but considering the end-to-end life cycle from design to vulnerability management and licensing, naming is important to see if we are referring to the same component. Yesterday, Jonathan from CISA presented the naming standard proposal at the EPSS meeting and shared how important naming is. I specifically asked if naming is important for SBOMs, and he replied the same thing I said - it is important for end-to-end security. I would appreciate further inputs. Thanks & Best Regards, Venkat. On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 5:18 PM Dick Brooks < [email protected]> wrote: > 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* > > > > *Never trust software, always verify and report! > <https://reliableenergyanalytics.com/products>* ™ > > http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com > > Email: [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. > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free.www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:03 AM Gary O'Neall <[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 (#5583): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/5583 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
