-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 231
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
SLSA Compliance Program #515
Comments
👍. We also need to figure out how to incorporate it into the specification. |
Thank you for working on this! I like the two-tiered proposal, getting folks (and process) up and running with a self assessment while we figure out third-party feels like a sound approach. The self-assessment process reminds me of the OpenSSF Best Practices badge and their model of a web application to complete the form may make sense? https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en I also wanted to link to a discussion around an attestation predicate for human reviews of artefacts happening in the in-toto attestation repository |
For reference here is the SLSA Compliance Assessment that is in use by the Kubernetes community for their SLSA efforts kubernetes/enhancements#3027 |
A major value area would be that organizations and projects can select a build system that allows them to comply with SLSA. For the first iteration, I think that is the best starting point for providing our badges and putting guardrails up. In the Specification Meeting on November 14th 2022 we discussed this as a decision point for the first effort so that we can properly scale the scope of work and an MVP of a self-attestation survey. Decision: The conformance program will initially target Build Systems Next Steps:
|
I'm one of the maintainers of https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-verifier`. We'd be interested in incorporating builder levels that come out of |
Hi, |
slsa-framework#515 Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]>
* Add SLSA conformance to requirements page #515 Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * lint Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * Update docs/spec/v1.0/requirements.md Co-authored-by: Arnaud J Le Hors <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * Update docs/spec/v1.0/requirements.md Co-authored-by: Joshua Mulliken <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * review comments & added requirement that attestation include SLSA levels Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * review comments Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * Update docs/spec/v1.0/requirements.md Co-authored-by: Mark Lodato <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * line wrap Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> --------- Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Arnaud J Le Hors <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Joshua Mulliken <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mark Lodato <[email protected]>
Removing this from the v1.0 tracker since we're moving it outside the spec. |
This fell a bit by the wayside as we prepared for v1.0-RC2. @JoshuaMulliken and I met with a member of the Linux Foundation to discuss setting up a conformance program. The basic steps are:
We've drafted a sample questionnaire and terms of service for the conformance program. Please feel free to comment, especially on the questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r6jM84mTa1dBJ6-KTPJKzCPUQ3GA8BuDIzFjbVfH7P8/edit?usp=sharing |
I've posted a proposal at slsa-framework/slsa-proposals#9 |
* Add SLSA conformance to requirements page slsa-framework#515 Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * lint Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * Update docs/spec/v1.0/requirements.md Co-authored-by: Arnaud J Le Hors <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * Update docs/spec/v1.0/requirements.md Co-authored-by: Joshua Mulliken <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * review comments & added requirement that attestation include SLSA levels Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * review comments Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * Update docs/spec/v1.0/requirements.md Co-authored-by: Mark Lodato <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> * line wrap Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> --------- Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kpk47 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Arnaud J Le Hors <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Joshua Mulliken <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mark Lodato <[email protected]>
Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iWjO4UGcGm0PeCm9mbqeT-PiD4z4S7qXMaZsGIFUn0s/edit
Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/0/d/1oQoJYy9aCGvnEi43NtgSEfuw3IZbYRuapKFrwSceudA/edit
Background
The Supply Chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA) framework provides a check-list of standards and controls to prevent tampering, improve integrity, and secure packages and infrastructure in your projects, businesses or enterprises. A compliance program that gives explicit permission for organizations to assert their compliance with the SLSA program will allow companies to utilize their security efforts in marketing and allow consumers to evaluate their suppliers effectively
The SLSA Compliance Program utilizes several common industry patterns to give consumers and businesses a transparent understanding of their rights and obligations when asserting compliance with the SLSA framework. This is provided through a self-assessment compliance program and an accredited third-party compliance program that are structured into tiers.
Next Steps
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: