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

SLSA v1.0: shift emphasis to expectations + verification in levels.md #503

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2022

Conversation

MarkLodato
Copy link
Member

@MarkLodato MarkLodato commented Oct 11, 2022

Preview: https://deploy-preview-503--slsa.netlify.app/spec/v1.0/levels

(As discussed in #130 and the Specification SIG meeting)

Previously the specification only required the publication of provenance but did not say anything about its verification. The latter is what actually detects or prevents attacks, so this was a big gap. Futhermore, the previous "scripted build" requirement did not have a clear reason why it was included.

Now there is explicit language around:

  • Defining an expectation of how the package should be built, replacing the previous "scripted build" requirement.
  • Verifying that the provenance meets expectations.

NOTE: This PR only changes levels.md. A future commit will make an equivalent change to the rest of the spec, e.g. requirements.md.

Related issues (not fully fixed): #46, #130, #371

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Oct 11, 2022

Deploy Preview for slsa ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit de5117a
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/slsa/deploys/634d5289f538cc0008943832
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-503--slsa.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

Copy link
Member

@joshuagl joshuagl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great to see this being fleshed out. I made suggestions inline to consistently use "as expected" rather than "as documented/expected".

docs/spec/v1.0/levels.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/spec/v1.0/levels.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@MarkLodato
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks. I updated the language as suggested and rebased onto the latest version of #502.

Previously the specification only required the publication of provenance
but did not say anything about its verification. The latter is what
actually detects or prevents attacks, so this was a big gap. Futhermore,
the previous "scripted build" requirement did not have a clear reason
why it was included.

Now there is explicit language around:

- Defining an expectation of how the package should be built, replacing
  the previous "scripted build" requirement.
- Verifying that the provenance meets expectations.

NOTE: This commit only changes levels.md. A future commit will make an
equivalent change to the rest of the spec, e.g. requirements.md.

Signed-off-by: Mark Lodato <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@joshuagl joshuagl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks. Do you think we should provide guidance on how to verify provenance meets expectations (and is signed) for users of the SLSA provenance format?

@MarkLodato
Copy link
Member Author

LGTM, thanks. Do you think we should provide guidance on how to verify provenance meets expectations (and is signed) for users of the SLSA provenance format?

Yes. I assume that would be a necessary part of #46. This PR here is only a first step.

Copy link
Member

@mlieberman85 mlieberman85 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@MarkLodato MarkLodato merged commit fd9c86d into slsa-framework:main Oct 19, 2022
@MarkLodato MarkLodato deleted the v1-expectations branch October 19, 2022 11:37
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants