IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mud] [OPSAWG] SBOMs and version non-specific MUD files

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 04 February 2022 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB253A223E; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 12:30:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ghlVC3atI2Vl; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 12:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C7BD3A223A; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 12:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F198E389BF; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:38:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9Efbk5-b6P3r; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:38:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E91389B0; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:38:04 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1644007084; bh=EBML6Isqo7x88onUmKkBLbt2fdFANB9z8v7zSiE2NWQ=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=L3eSFrdAo2qJmQsH6pDejQ7oVVPwyoN3tRpqoA4UT4BK4sDce+4aygRanfTvJXL0C xXaCulGlkVFxrrQg1XjskkWOqJMB4+suPzTxhtJ4EsQkOQ1a+oeV/eEbOcFqg+5AP6 Gy08eN8XOUU66cun7ZbbLYCLBES7GasYQJIma8IaFI7PpRW/84ekjpp+X6R9m8n5YF IKyZkM0CDKXDwaO817vpJ4XPmouW8UkVSI1J0oKSQLj0EVOcC6+9gsGwb1ZSL4NnHI 6rvkx0/sGNBjSmwEK3QYYdl0ZBZKgq8l4jF/2rO5K4omhucp5wH74B/B0plIhbiL8X eZXmivxjL42oQ==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF846CE; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:30:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: dick@reliableenergyanalytics.com, mud@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <686901d819f9$8ffc5720$aff50560$@reliableenergyanalytics.com>
References: <282926.1643996393@dooku> <686901d819f9$8ffc5720$aff50560$@reliableenergyanalytics.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 15:30:41 -0500
Message-ID: <27407.1644006641@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/iUmDPbGYPkCyhZe9UZE_gzEA0Rs>
Subject: Re: [Mud] [OPSAWG] SBOMs and version non-specific MUD files
X-BeenThere: mud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Manufacturer Ussage Descriptions <mud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mud/>
List-Post: <mailto:mud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 20:30:51 -0000

Dick Brooks <dick@reliableenergyanalytics.com> wrote:
    > The predominant "SBOM delivery channel" I see is through access controlled
    > customer portals where customers can download SBOM's Vulnerability
    > Disclosures and other artifacts needed to perform a NIST C-SCRM risk
    > assessment for Executive Order 14028.

For hospitals, sure.
For baby monitors, maybe not.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email