The end user should have exactly as much recourse as they paid for (c; Seriously though, in my opinion a more apt comparison would be that of a food bank. As we know, food banks often give away food and other items that are desperately needed. As we also know, many companies donate food to these food banks. They may do so out of the goodness of their corporate hearts, or as a tax write-off, or whatever. The intent is irrelevant. Let’s imagine now that laws were put in place dictating that they are responsible for any injury that might be incurred during the consumption of food they donated, regardless of whether they have any insight whatsoever as to how the food is consumed, prepared, etc. And to take it one step further, what if the law stated that the company didn’t even have to be solely responsible for producing the food themselves? If they had *any part* in making that food available to the food bank (production, sorting, packing, etc), they assume responsibility for the food. How many corporations do you think would continue to donate to the food bank?
From: spdx@lists.spdx.org <spdx@lists.spdx.org> on behalf of Dick Brooks <d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com> Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:30 PM To: spdx@lists.spdx.org <spdx@lists.spdx.org> Cc: sc...@ietf.org <sc...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spdx] EU CRA is very supportive of SBOM You make a good point Brian. Clearly the restaurant owner bears responsibility in your analogy. But what about the case where a consumer takes the tainted cucumbers from the farm stand and gets sick/dies? Who is responsible then? Does the farmer bear any responsibility for distributing tainted cucumbers that caused a fatality? Thanks, Dick Brooks [cid:image001.png@01D9C3C3.6C80CE00] [cid:image006.png@01D9C3C3.84F29630] 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<http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com/> Email: d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com<mailto:d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com> Tel: +1 978-696-1788 From: spdx@lists.spdx.org <spdx@lists.spdx.org> On Behalf Of Brian Fox Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 1:57 PM To: spdx@lists.spdx.org Cc: sc...@ietf.org; scrm-nist <scrm-n...@nist.gov>; swsupplychain-eo <swsupplychain...@nist.gov>; Steve Springett <steve.spring...@owasp.org> Subject: Re: [spdx] EU CRA is very supportive of SBOM On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 8:05 AM Dick Brooks <d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com<mailto:d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com>> wrote: Mike, I agree. The CRA is raising questions about the open-source business model, which IMO is broken and needs to be fixed. Open-source developers and maintainers are very talented and work very hard; they deserve to be properly compensated as they develop more “secure by design” concepts into their software offerings. IMO, The EU CRA is designed to help protect the consumers of software; they bare all the cost, risks and harm of a cyber-incident. If you think of this in another context, would you as a consumer accept a free food product that causes cancer to occur? I'll take the bait, except the analogy is not quite aligned (as basically all analogies are, but I'll try). Let's say a restaurant buyer stumbles on a home farm stand with cucumbers that say "free, use at own risk, no warranty implied" and decides to take them all and sell them in the restaurant. If people get sick, who's to blame? The person offering their extra produce for the public good, or the restaurant passing it off in a product that they collect revenue for? Or try another, lets say a local blacksmith makes various doodads and gives away some extra pieces of metal for art because he likes to make them. Someone comes along and takes those doodads and uses them for a totally different purpose, like in a space craft. That part fails and kills people, who was at fault? The hobbyist sharing things for the purpose of art with no implied warrantee, or the manufacturer taking something and using it for a totally different purpose without any diligence or understanding if the part is fit for (a new) purpose? Would you accept software that causes a malicious cyber incident to occur? As I said, IMO the EU CRA is more about consumer protection than an attack on open-source developers. Thanks, Dick Brooks [cid:image001.png@01D9C3C3.6C80CE00] [cid:image007.png@01D9C3C3.84F29630] 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<http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com/> Email: d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com<mailto:d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com> Tel: +1 978-696-1788 From: spdx@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx@lists.spdx.org> <spdx@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx@lists.spdx.org>> On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich via lists.spdx.org<http://lists.spdx.org> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 4:51 PM To: spdx@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx@lists.spdx.org> Cc: sc...@ietf.org<mailto:sc...@ietf.org>; scrm-nist <scrm-n...@nist.gov<mailto:scrm-n...@nist.gov>>; swsupplychain-eo <swsupplychain...@nist.gov<mailto:swsupplychain...@nist.gov>>; Steve Springett <steve.spring...@owasp.org<mailto:steve.spring...@owasp.org>> Subject: Re: [spdx] EU CRA is very supportive of SBOM On 2023-07-27 10:52 a.m., Dick Brooks wrote: Today, all the risks and cost from a cyber attack fall on the consumer. IMO the EU CRA is designed to protect consumers by sharing responsibility for cyber attack liabilities with software producers. The issue IMO is the open source model fails to properly compensate the talented people behind open source projects The entire open source ecosystem is built upon the understanding that the software is freely provided, but that the producers of free software provide no warranties and accept no liability. The CRA breaks that fundamental deal by imposing CE Mark conformance requirements on all software, including all of the open source software that matters, made available in Europe. Failure to conform with these requirements results in a fine of the greater of €15 million or 2.5% of the manufacturer's annual revenue, whichever is greater. Under the CRA the responsibility for implementing CE Mark conformance will fall upon the people and groups least able to deal with the effort. I.e. the developers, projects, communities, and nonprofit foundations who distribute open source projects. The end result will not be more secure software. The end result will be that many projects will say that their open source software cannot be used in Europe. Which will not be a positive result for the EU. It is important to stress that this is not a misunderstanding. The European Commission and the relevant parliamentary committee know full well that the words in the CRA will impose these requirements on the open source community. In addition, the CRA will require open source projects to report unpatched vulnerabilities to either national authorities or ENISA (depending on which version prevails in the trilogue). It will also outlaw open source development best practices where intermediate builds are made available under open source licenses (see Article 4). I know this is a place where everyone gets to talk about how great SBOMs are. But defending the CRA because it mandates SBOMs is absurd. The approach outlined in the US National Cybersecurity Strategy is far better. It makes it clear that the open source producers will not be held responsible and puts the responsibility for security on the parties who are commercializing the open source components. That approach is far more likely to achieve the result we all desire, which is more secure software. On Jul 26, 2023, at 4:24 PM, John Sullivan <j...@wjsullivan.net><mailto:j...@wjsullivan.net> wrote: On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 09:21:30AM -0400, Dick Brooks wrote: Very encouraging language in the EU CRA for SBOM adoption and vulnerability monitoring/reporting. Small consolation given what a potential disaster the CRA is for open source / free software in general (see especially Problem 3): https://github.blog/2023-07-12-no-cyber-resilience-without-open-source-sustainability/ -- Mike Milinkovich Executive Director Eclipse Foundation AISBL -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1736): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1736 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/100370207/21656 Group Owner: spdx+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/21656/1698928721/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
