Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

List of vulnerability disclosure standards #67

Open
MarcinHoppe opened this issue Oct 30, 2020 · 16 comments
Open

List of vulnerability disclosure standards #67

MarcinHoppe opened this issue Oct 30, 2020 · 16 comments

Comments

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is a result of the discussion started in #53 and continued in the WG meeting on October 26, 2020.

The goal is to create a list of industry standards relevant to OSS vulnerability disclosure processes, starting with:

  • CVE
    • In particular: the JSON schema
  • CVSS
  • CVRF / CSAF

We should probably also be looking at "adjacent" standards and evaluate how well they work in OSS context:

  • CPE
  • SWID tags
  • PURL
  • SCAP family of specifications
  • SBoM standards
    • SPDX
    • CycloneDX

I imagine we could focus on creating a document that explains where those standards come into play, and what are their strengths and weaknesses in the OSS context.

@dodys
Copy link
Contributor

dodys commented Oct 30, 2020

Creating such a doc would be great and would allow us to have a better discussion during the meetings, as I imagine not everyone know/worked with all of them.
Should this doc be in the repo or something like gDocs?

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think my preference would be a Markdown file here in this repo (we could discuss in a PR), but I am open to suggestions!

@Foxboron
Copy link
Contributor

After the initial documentation is done we could also try figure out which providers use which format as a form of example.

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do you mean organizations such as Linux distros that might handle disclosure for upstream OSS software?

@Foxboron
Copy link
Contributor

Right, that was another thing we should document. But I was more thinking of pointing at which standard are in use where. As an example Red Hat uses CVRF 1.2 loosely converted to json. It might be handy to have such things mentioned for implementation purposes.

For documenting disclosure procedures we can maybe open another issue?

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think that would be a separate issue. Data formats will likely be a part of that, but there's also a process component.

@esarafianou
Copy link
Contributor

I did an attempt to document CSAF CVRF version 1.2 in #72 . Let me know what you think on the content and format and we can iterate on it.

@stevespringett
Copy link

Let me know if anyone needs clarification on how CycloneDX handles this. In short, it supports disclosure and remediation use cases. I gave a presentation to the NTIA VEX subgroup last month on this topic.

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stevespringett would you be interested in attending one of the WG meetings and telling us more about it? I am very curious myself.

@stevespringett
Copy link

Certainly @MarcinHoppe. I've added the invite to my calendar.

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stevespringett do you want to join this Monday (11/16) or the next one? I will find some time on the agenda on the date that is convenient for you.

@stevespringett
Copy link

@MarcinHoppe Sure, I can join this Monday. I have a recurring conflict that cuts into the first 30 minutes of the meeting, but I can attend the second half of the meeting. Would likely take about 20 min or so.

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stevespringett Great! I will slate your presentation in the second half of the meeting.

@JasonKeirstead
Copy link

Can we add SARIF to above list, as it came up in another thread.

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/sarif/charter.php
https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.0/sarif-v2.0.html

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

We we drill down into personas and use cases, it would be great to map existing standards to those.

@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Contributor

Note: In the meeting today, we discussed that users of the document would typically not care about many of these. If you disagree, let's talk!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants