Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: Re: [ntia-sbom-framing] Fwd: ?? WG Adoption Call on draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00

Dick Brooks <> Tue, 05 January 2021 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96B23A1067 for <>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 07:56:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmK1NxyCvsn6 for <>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 07:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60A823A104B for <>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 07:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F8C5C00BD; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:55:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 Jan 2021 10:55:36 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=5zg5hS ZO86f9xvU9MTvL1M8IBTdQSl5d8NKOR8QzmxQ=; b=eje7kLTWwWSlQHQfvt3kmO SGyyKRadBhMCsOPGbaN1+YKBhA84d8yQGji3BM4p9McJ8620zSfhWDtQVfrpNCtp munQMZGP8vD4Xf9ON8SHP+Prfh/fPGu1cKazpG+/vpulqtSxOfHQbAda7pWcepEu /UFlbLHbpwB1r2LCYMXSaYCVPPk5UEOhQ7AcnNw9XD2nJtMY6MJR43ybEFRhgypp vHqxkr09vge3IficAZw91pwG7ImBanepmdOVgboSD/xJjmymQyt542ZIe61PG01L E5NxGWbVzOuYgyt+HJipLJOqIv9XDomqQRielGmMDRllYbHsAhO769ZH/mF6z4vQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:94v0X4xK5T-C1p6KRNPjWEosus615Qb0Wxr0rA0N1hezUHelOravWA> <xme:94v0X8MGIL96HXfgLlQOp7Es8Mntxs9W3rsMp6IvnZhzRrpqqzAkmuZ4L180HCT8c e07u87Uie6Yf0BjJw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdefjedggeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvfhgjufffohfkgggtofhtsehrtdhgpedvtdejnecuhfhrohhmpedfffhi tghkuceurhhoohhkshdfuceoughitghksehrvghlihgrsghlvggvnhgvrhhghigrnhgrlh ihthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtteefjefffeeivdeigffflefg heekiedvffefleffheegkeeufedvtdfgudffleenucffohhmrghinheprhgvlhhirggslh gvvghnvghrghihrghnrghlhihtihgtshdrtghomhenucfkphepvdduiedrudelfedrudeg vddrvddvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epughitghksehrvghlihgrsghlvggvnhgvrhhghigrnhgrlhihthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:-Iv0X3MInx0FKXmKHxTW6G_14tT4GMljG7VRje2lft_fzxyMiVe-yw> <xmx:-Iv0X-TX_MNBV1M2nWGq8ejAuVZp8JD6_hR_5WBJdWNSYQCR9_L8oQ> <xmx:-Iv0X5DNzWl9M-qL38y5ej358GwgW28u_bzLIww7_bA6cdq57GC7Ng> <xmx:-Iv0X4DEwraoaRkJUQhHHkTnBmADnhinLvCW1yaPhEmyfr5r4CgbGw>
Received: from farpoint (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BECEE108005F; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:55:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dick Brooks" <>
To: "'Eliot Lear'" <>
Cc: "'Christopher Gates'" <>, <>, <>
References: <ema9be735c-1725-4ceb-8ca1-bc90f895f94e@vwdl7400-36262r2> <27fb01d6e37a$b376a220$1a63e660$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:55:32 -0500
Organization: Reliable Energy Analytics LLC
Message-ID: <283501d6e37b$344d1dc0$9ce75940$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2836_01D6E351.4B7EB6E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH8bkPotrER+eOFupHvNH45exmtUQFhtqqOAULXQXGpuPT0gA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: Re: [ntia-sbom-framing] Fwd: ?? WG Adoption Call on draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:56:13 -0000

I would support having both SPDX and CycloneDX. Both have proven viable in my testing. 




Dick Brooks

 <> Never trust software, always verify and report! ™


Email:  <>

Tel: +1 978-696-1788


From: Eliot Lear <> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 10:53 AM
To: Dick Brooks <>
Cc: Christopher Gates <>om>;;
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fw: Re: [ntia-sbom-framing] Fwd: 🔔 WG Adoption Call on draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00


Ok.  Should I add something for CycloneDX?



On 5 Jan 2021, at 16:51, Dick Brooks < <> > wrote:


I concur with Chris. I’ve heard reports of people trying to use SWID to communicate SBOM information and they are having to make some “brave” assumptions in the process.  SPDX and CycloneDX seem  to be the only viable SBOM formats, based on my testing experience with both formats. 


There remain several issues on naming and identification conventions. A lot of the challenges I’ve experienced could be addressed if NIST NVD and NTIA SBOM parties could reach an agreement on how names/identifiers will be represented in their respective domains. It would only require a few elements to be agreed to, like Publisher name, Product name and Version identifier to make an impactful improvement in vulnerability search results, using SBOM data as inputs. 




Dick Brooks


 <> Never trust software, always verify and report! ™


Email:  <>

Tel: +1 978-696-1788


From: OPSAWG < <> > On Behalf Of Christopher Gates
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 10:27 AM
To: <> 
Subject: [OPSAWG] Fw: Re: [ntia-sbom-framing] Fwd: 🔔 WG Adoption Call on draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00



------ Forwarded Message ------

From: "Christopher Gates" < <> >

To: "Eliot Lear" < <> >; " <> " < <> >

Sent: 1/4/2021 2:48:51 PM

Subject: Re: [ntia-sbom-framing] Fwd: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call on draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00




I joined the IETF WG, and I have some feedback....



A "SWID tag" isn't an SBOM format, as stated here. It is an element inside of an SBOM.

Since we have removed SWID as a format we in the "NTIA SBOM WG are supporting for SBOM use, shouldn't this reference be removed from the IETF draft as well?



Also, I still think that creating a Bluetooth Low Energy SBOM Adopted Profile (via the Bluetooth SIG) that is harmonized with this would be a good thing:



Due the the low bandwidth of BLE we wouldn't attempt to provide the SBOM via BLE, just the link to a URI that can deliver the SBOM.

It would create a standardized UUID (16 bit) for the SBOM Adopted Profile, and have a consistent set of characteristics being exposed via BLE.

This is exactly how an Adopted Profile is supposed to be defined and utilized.



Christopher Gates


Director of Product Security <> 


520 Courtney Way Suite 110

Lafayette CO. 80026



Our new book is now shipping:

Medical Device Cybersecurity for Engineers and Manufacturers

U.S. <>  | Worldwide <> 

Amazon <> & Digital <> 

Security Book Of The Year! <> 


“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” -George S. Patton

"Facts are stubborn things."  -John Adams, 1770


------ Original Message ------

From: "Eliot Lear via ntia-sbom-framing" < <> >

To: <> 

Sent: 1/4/2021 9:57:22 AM

Subject: [ntia-sbom-framing] Fwd: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call on draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00


FYI- this is your opportunity to contribute to the IETF.  If you think sharing of SBOMs is important, this is a starting point for the IETF to begin work on that aspect, not an end point.  Please feel free to contribute by joining the opsawg IETF list at



Begin forwarded message:


From: Henk Birkholz < <> >

Subject: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call on draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00

Date: 4 January 2021 at 17:10:19 CET

To: opsawg < <> >


Dear OPSAWG members,

this starts a call for Working Group Adoption on ending on Monday, January 25.

As a reminder, this I-D describes different ways to acquire Software Bills of Material (SBOM) about distinguishable managed entities. The work was updated by the authors on October 13th and now elaborates on three ways SBOM can be found, including a MUD URI as one of the options.

Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments you may have.

For the OPSAWG co-chairs,


OPSAWG mailing list <>


Disclaimer: The information and attachments transmitted by this e-mail are proprietary to Velentium, LLC and the information and attachments may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law and are intended for use only by the individual or entity to whom it was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message and attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system immediately hereafter.

OPSAWG mailing list