-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
[Discussion] How should we evaluate "completeness"? #19
Comments
sbomqs is working on supporting the draft 4 here: interlynk-io/sbomqs#313 |
Lets proceed with sbomqs similar to the
|
Do we care about SBOM spec validation at all? I just noticed that sbomqs will only check that the version of the declared SBOM spec is supported, but it doesn't actually do validation against that spec. There's an issue to add support here: interlynk-io/sbomqs#248 I noticed this when sbom-utility raised some spec errors on an SBOM that were not reported by sbomqs:
|
@tiegz yes this is accurate
We think of validating a sbom with a schema as a pre-step to scoring. This is how we plan to implement it. It will however be optional. -Ritesh |
The group has decided to use |
We need a automated method for evaluation "completeness" of SBOMs which can be incorporated into a pipeline.
The following tools have quality checks:
Ideally we be able to determine if we're meeting all minimum requirements of Framing Software Component Transparency Third Edition (DRAFT) but tooling probably doesn't support these checks.
Another option of completeness is the BOM Maturity Model which is being incorporated into sbomqs.
Are there other ways we could measure completeness of SBOMs today in a pipeline?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: