ModuleQ reduces vulnerability management time by 80% with Anchore Secure

ModuleQ, an AI-driven enterprise knowledge platform, knows only too well the stakes for a company providing software solutions in the highly regulated financial services sector. In this world where data breaches are cause for termination of a vendor relationship and evolving cyberthreats loom large, proactive vulnerability management is not just a best practice—it’s a necessity. 

ModuleQ required a vulnerability management platform that could automatically identify and remediate vulnerabilities, maintain airtight security, and meet stringent compliance requirements—all without slowing down their development velocity.

Learn the essential container security best practices to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks in this white paper.

The Challenge: Scaling Security in a High-Stakes Environment

ModuleQ found itself drowning in a flood of newly released vulnerabilities—over 25,000 in 2023 alone. Operating in a heavily regulated industry meant any oversight could have severe repercussions. High-profile incidents like the Log4j exploit underscored the importance of supply chain security, yet the manual, resource-intensive nature of ModuleQ’s vulnerability management process made it hard to keep pace.

The mandate that no critical vulnerabilities reached production was a particularly high bar to meet with the existing manual review process. Each time engineers stepped away from their coding environment to check a separate security dashboard, they lost context, productivity, and confidence. The fear of accidentally letting something slip through the cracks was ever present.

The Solution: Anchore Secure for Automated, Integrated Vulnerability Management

ModuleQ chose Anchore Secure to simplify, automate, and fully integrate vulnerability management into their existing DevSecOps workflows. Instead of relying on manual security reviews, Anchore Secure injected security measures seamlessly into ModuleQ’s Azure DevOps pipelines, .NET, and C# environment. Every software build—staged nightly through a multi-step pipeline—was automatically scanned for vulnerabilities. Any critical issues triggered immediate notifications and halted promotions to production, ensuring that potential risks were addressed before they could ever reach customers.

Equally important, Anchore’s platform was built to operate in on-prem or air-gapped environments. This guaranteed that ModuleQ’s clients could maintain the highest security standards without the need for external connectivity. For an organization whose customers demand this level of diligence, Anchore’s design provided peace of mind and strengthened client relationships.

Results: Faster, More Secure Deployments

By adopting Anchore Secure, ModuleQ dramatically accelerated and enhanced its vulnerability management approach:

  • 80% Reduction in Vulnerability Management Time: Automated scanning, triage, and reporting freed the team from manual checks, letting them focus on building new features rather than chasing down low-priority issues.
  • 50% Less Time on Security Tasks During Deployments: Proactive detection of high-severity vulnerabilities streamlined deployment workflows, enabling ModuleQ to deliver software faster—without compromising security.
  • Unwavering Confidence in Compliance: With every new release automatically vetted for critical vulnerabilities, ModuleQ’s customers in the financial sector gained renewed trust. Anchore’s support for fully on-prem deployments allowed ModuleQ to meet stringent security demands consistently.

Looking Ahead

In an era defined by unrelenting cybersecurity threats, ModuleQ proved that speed and security need not be at odds. Anchore Secure provided a turnkey solution that integrated seamlessly into their workflow, saving time, strengthening compliance, and maintaining the agility to adapt to future challenges. By adopting an automated security backbone, ModuleQ has positioned itself as a trusted and reliable partner in the financial services landscape.

Looking for more details? Read the ModuleQ case study in full. If you’re ready to move forward see all of the features on Anchore Secure’s product page or reach out to our team to schedule a demo.

Choosing the Right SBOM Generator: A Framework for Success

Choosing the right SBOM (software bill of materials) generator is tricker than it looks at first glance. SBOMs are the foundation for a number of different uses ranging from software supply chain security to continuous regulatory compliance. Due to its cornerstone nature, the SBOM generator that you choose will either pave the way for achieving your organization’s goals or become a road block that delays critical initiatives.

But how do you navigate the crowded market of SBOM generation tools to find the one that aligns with your organization’s unique needs? It’s not merely about selecting a tool with the most features or the nicest CLI. It’s about identifying a solution that maps directly to your desired outcomes and use-cases, whether that’s rapid incident response, proactive vulnerability management, or compliance reporting.

We at Anchore have been enabling organizations to achieve their SBOM-related outcomes and do it with the least amount of frustration and setbacks. We’ve compiled our learnings on choosing the right SBOM generation tool into a framework to help the wider community make decisions that set them up for success.

Below is a quick TL;DR of the high-level evaluation criteria that we cover in this blog post:

  • Understanding Your Use-Cases: Aligning the tool with your specific goals.
  • Ecosystem Compatibility: Ensuring support for your programming languages, operating systems, and build artifacts.
  • Data Accuracy: Evaluating the tool’s ability to provide comprehensive and precise SBOMs.
  • DevSecOps Integration: Assessing how well the tool fits into your existing DevSecOps tooling.
  • Proprietary vs. Open Source: Weighing the long-term implications of your choice.

By focusing on these key areas, you’ll be better equipped to select an SBOM generator that not only meets your current requirements but also positions your organization for future success.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security of your organization in this white paper.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security, including open source software (OSS) security, of your organization in this white paper.

Know your use-cases

When choosing from the array of SBOM generation tools in the market, it is important to frame your decision with the outcome(s) that you are trying to achieve. If your goal is to improve the response time/mean time to remediation when the next Log4j-style incident occurs—and be sure that there will be a next time—an SBOM tool that excels at correctly identifying open source licenses in a code base won’t be the best solution for your use-case (even if you prefer its CLI ;-D).

What to Do:

  • Identify and prioritize the outcomes that your organization is attempting to achieve
  • Map the outcomes to the relevant SBOM use-cases
  • Review each SBOM generation tool to determine whether they are best suited to your use-cases

It can be tempting to prioritize an SBOM generator that is best suited to our preferences and workflows; we are the ones that will be using the tool regularly—shouldn’t we prioritize what makes our lives easier? If we prioritize our needs above the goal of the initiative we might end up putting ourselves into a position where our choice in tools impedes our ability to recognize the desired outcome. Using the correct framing, in this case by focusing on the use-cases, will keep us focused on delivering the best possible outcome.

SBOMs can be utilized for numerous purposes: security incident response, open source license compliance, proactive vulnerability management, compliance reporting or software supply chain risk management. We won’t address all use-cases/outcomes in this blog post, a more comprehensive treatment of all of the potential SBOM use-cases can be found on our website.

Example SBOM Use-Cases:

  • Security incident response: an inventory of all applications and their dependencies that can be queried quickly and easily to identify whether a newly announced zero-day impacts the organization.
  • Proactive vulnerability management: all software and dependencies are scanned for vulnerabilities as part of the DevSecOps lifecycle and remediated based on organizational priority.
  • Regulatory compliance reporting: compliance artifacts and reports are automatically generated by the DevSecOps pipeline to enable continuous compliance and prevent manual compliance work.
  • Software supply chain risk management: an inventory of software components with identified vulnerabilities used to inform organizational decision making when deciding between remediating risk versus building new features.
  • Open source license compliance: an inventory of all software components and the associated OSS license to measure potential legal exposure.

Pro tip: While you will inevitably leave many SBOM use-cases out of scope for your current project, keeping secondary use-cases in the back of your mind while making a decision on the right SBOM tool will set you up for success when those secondary use-cases eventually become a priority in the future.

Does the SBOM generator support your organization’s ecosystem of programming languages, etc?

SBOM generators aren’t just tools to ingest data and re-format it into a standardized format. They are typically paired with a software composition analysis (SCA) tool that scans an application/software artifact for metadata that will populate the final SBOM.

Support for the complete array of programming languages, build artifacts and operating system ecosystems is essentially an impossible task. This means that support varies significantly depending on the SBOM generator that you select. An SBOM generator’s ability to help you reach your organizational goals is directly related to its support for your organization’s software tooling preferences. This will likely be one of the most important qualifications when choosing between different options and will rule out many that don’t meet the needs of your organization.

Considerations:

  • Programming Languages: Does the tool support all languages used by your team?
  • Operating Systems: Can it scan the different OS environments your applications run on top of?
  • Build Artifacts: Does the tool scan containers? Binaries? Source code repositories? 
  • Frameworks and Libraries: Does it recognize the frameworks and libraries your applications depend on?

Data accuracy

This is one of the most important criteria when evaluating different SBOM tools. An SBOM generator may claim support for a particular programming language but after testing the scanner you may discover that it returns an SBOM with only direct dependencies—honestly not much better than a package.json or go.mod file that your build process spits out.

Two different tools might both generate a valid SPDX SBOM document when run against the same source artifact, but the content of those documents can vary greatly. This variation depends on what the tool can inspect, understand, and translate. Being able to fully scan an application for both direct and transitive dependencies as well as navigate non-ideomatic patterns for how software can be structured end up being the true differentiators between the field of SBOM generation contenders.

Imagine using two SBOM tools on a Debian package. One tool recognizes Debian packages and includes detailed information about them in the SBOM. The latter can’t fully parse the Debian .deb format and omits critical information. Both produce an SBOM, but only one provides the data you need to power use-case based outcomes like security incident response or proactive vulnerability management.

Let’s make this example more concrete by simulating this difference with Syft, Anchore’s open source SBOM generation tool:

$ syft -q -o spdx-json nginx:latest > nginx_a.spdx.json
$ grype -q nginx_a.spdx.json | grep Critical
libaom3             3.6.0-1+deb12u1          (won't fix)       deb   CVE-2023-6879     Critical    
libssl3             3.0.14-1~deb12u2         (won't fix)       deb   CVE-2024-5535     Critical    
openssl             3.0.14-1~deb12u2         (won't fix)       deb   CVE-2024-5535     Critical    
zlib1g              1:1.2.13.dfsg-1          (won't fix)       deb   CVE-2023-45853    Critical

In this example, we first generate an SBOM using Syft then run it through Grype—our vulnerability scanning tool. Syft + Grype uncover 4 critical vulnerabilities.

Now let’s try the same thing but “simulate” an SBOM generator that can’t fully parse the structure of the software artifact in question:

$ syft -q -o spdx-json --select-catalogers "-dpkg-db-cataloger,-binary-classifier-cataloger" nginx:latest > nginx_b.spdx.json 
$ grype -q nginx_b.spdx.json | grep Critical
$

In this case, we are returned none of the critical vulnerabilities found with the former tool.

This highlights the importance of careful evaluation of the SBOM generator that you decide on. It could mean the difference between effective vulnerability risk management and a security incident.

Can the SBOM tool integration into your DevSecOps pipeline?

If the SBOM generator is packaged as a self-contained binary with a command line interface (CLI) then it should tick this box. CI/CD build tools are most amenable to this deployment model. If the SBOM generation tool in question isn’t a CLI then it should at least run as a server with an API that can be called as part of the build process.

Integrating with an organization’s DevSecOps pipeline is key to enable a scalable SBOM generation process. By implementing SBOM creation directly into the existing build tooling, organizations can leverage existing automation tools to ensure consistency and efficiency which are necessary for achieving the desired outcomes.

Proprietary vs. open source SBOM generator?

Using an open source SBOM tool is considered an industry best practice. This is because it guards against the risks associated with vendor lock-in. As a bonus, the ecosystem for open source SBOM generation tooling is very healthy. OSS will always have an advantage over proprietary in regards to ecosystem coverage and data quality because it will get into the hands of more users which will create a feedback loop that closes gaps in coverage or quality.

Finally, even if your organization decides to utilize a software supply chain security product that has its own proprietary SBOM generator, it is still better to create your SBOMs with an open source SBOM generator, export to a standardized format (e.g., SPDX or CycloneDX) then have your software supply chain security platform ingest these non-proprietary data structures. All platforms will be able to ingest SBOMs from one or both of these standards-based formats.

Wrap-Up

In a landscape where the next security/compliance/legal challenge is always just around the corner, equipping your team with the right SBOM generator empowers you to act swiftly and confidently. It’s an investment not just in a tool, but in the resilience and security of your entire software supply chain. By making a thoughtful, informed choice now, you’re laying the groundwork for a more secure and efficient future.

Automate STIG Compliance with MITRE SAF: the Fastest Path to ATO

Trying to get your head around STIG (Security Technical Implementation Guides) compliance? Anchore is here to help. With the help of MITRE Security Automation Framework (SAF) we’ll walk you through the quickset path to STIG Compliance and ultimately the converted Authority to Operate (ATO).

The goal for any company that aims to provide software services to the Department of Defense (DoD) is an ATO. Without this stamp of approval your software will never get into the hands of the warfighters that need it most. STIG compliance is a necessary needle that must be thread on the path to ATO. Luckily, MITRE has developed and open-sourced SAF to smooth the often complex and time-consuming STIG compliance process.

We’ll get you up to speed on MITRE SAF and how it helps you achieve STIG compliance in this blog post but before we jump straight into the content be sure to bookmark our webinar with the Chief Architect of MITRE Security Automation Framework (SAF), Aaron Lippold. Josh Bressers, VP of Security at Anchore and Lippold provide a behind the scenes look at SAF and how it dramatically reduces the friction of the STIG compliance process.

What is the MITRE Security Automation Framework (SAF)?

The MITRE SAF is both a high-level cybersecurity framework and an umbrella that encompasses a set of security/compliance tools. It is designed to simplify STIG compliance by translating DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency) SRG (Security Requirements Guide) guidance into actionable steps. 

By following the Security Automation Framework, organizations can streamline and automate the hardened configuration of their DevSecOps pipeline to achieve an ATO (Authority to Operate).

The SAF offers four primary benefits:

  1. Accelerate Path to ATO: By streamlining STIG compliance, SAF enables organizations to get their applications into the hands of DoD operators faster. This acceleration is crucial for meeting operational demands without compromising on security standards.
  2. Establish Security Requirements: SAF translates SRGs and STIGs into actionable steps tailored to an organization’s specific DevSecOps pipeline. This eliminates ambiguity and ensures security controls are implemented correctly.
  3. Build Security In: The framework provides tooling that can be directly embedded into the software development pipeline. By automating STIG configurations and policy checks, it ensures that security measures are consistently applied, leaving no room for false steps.
  4. Assess and Monitor Vulnerabilities: SAF offers visualization and analysis tools that assist organizations in making informed decisions about their current vulnerability inventory. It helps chart a path toward achieving STIG compliance and ultimately an ATO.

The overarching vision of the MITRE SAF is to “implement evolving security requirements while deploying apps at speed.” In essence, it allows organizations to have their cake and eat it too—gaining the benefits of accelerated software delivery without letting cybersecurity risks grow unchecked.

How does MITRE SAF work?

MITRE SAF is segmented into 5 capabilities that map to specific stages of the DevSecOps pipeline or STIG compliance process:

  1. Plan
  2. Harden
  3. Validate
  4. Normalize
  5. Visualize

Let’s break down each of these capabilities.

Plan

There are hundreds of existing STIGs for products ranging from Microsoft Windows to Cisco Routers to MySQL databases. On the off chance that a product your team wants to use doesn’t have a pre-existing STIG, SAF’s Vulcan tool is helps translate the application SRG into a tailored STIG that can then be used to achieve compliance.

Vulcan helps streamline the process of creating STIG-ready security guidance and the accompanying InSpec automated policy that confirms a specific instance of software is configured in a compliant manner.

Vulcan does this by modeling the STIG intent form and tailoring the applicable SRG controls into a finished STIG for an application. The finished STIG is then sent to DISA for peer review and formal publishing as a STIG. Vulcan allows the author to develop both human-readable instructions and machine-readable InSpec automated validation code at the same time.

Diagram of process to map SRG controls to STIG guidelines via the MITE SAF Vulcan CLI tool; an automated conversion tool to speed up STIG compliance process.

Harden

The hardening capability focuses on automating STIG compliance through the use of pre-built infrastructure configuration scripts. SAF hardening content allows organizations to:

  • Use their preferred configuration management tools: Chef Cookbooks, Ansible Playbooks, Terraform Modules, etc. are available as open source templates on MITRE’s GitHub page.
  • Share and collaborate: All hardening content is open source, encouraging community involvement and shared learning.
  • Coverage for the full development stack: Ensuring that every layer, from cloud infrastructure to applications, adheres to security standards.

Validate

The validation capability focuses on verifying the hardening meets the applicable STIG compliance standard. These validation checks are automated via the SAF CLI tool that incorporates the InSpec policies for a STIG. With SAF CLI, organizations can:

  • Automatically validate STIG compliance: By integrating SAF CLI directly into your CI/CD pipeline and invoking InSpec policy checks at every build; shifting security left by surfacing policy violations early.
  • Promote community collaboration: Like the hardening content, validation scripts are open source and accessible by the community for collaborative efforts.
  • Span the entire development stack: Validation—similar to hardening—isn’t limited to a single layer; it encompasses cloud infrastructure, platforms, operating systems, databases, web servers, and applications.
  • Incorporate manual attestation: To achieve comprehensive coverage of policy requirements that automated tools might not fully address.

Normalize

Normalization addresses the challenge of interoperability between different security tools and data formats. SAF CLI performs double-duty by taking on the normalization function as well as validation. It is able to:

  • Translate data into OHDF: OASIS Heimdall Data Format (OHDF), is an open standard that structures countless proprietary security metadata formats into a single universal format.
  • Leverage open source OHDF libraries: Organizations can use OHDF converters as libraries within their custom applications.
  • Automate data conversion: By incorporating SAF CLI into the DevSecOps pipeline, data is automatically standardized with each run.
  • Increased compliance efficiency: A single data format for all security data allows interoperability and facilitates efficient and automated STIG compliance.

Example: Below is an example of Burp Suite’s proprietary data format normalized to the OHDF JSON format:

Image of Burp Suite data format being mapped to MITRE SAF's OHDF to reduce manual data mapping and reduce time to STIG compliance.

Visualize

Visualization is critical for understanding security posture and making informed decisions. SAF provides an open source, self-hosted visualization tool named Heimdall. It ingests OHDF normalized security data and provides the data analysis tools to enable organizations to:

  • Aggregate security and compliance results: Compiling data into comprehensive rollups, charts, and timelines for a holistic view of security and compliance status.
  • Perform deep dives: Allowing teams to explore detailed vulnerability information to facilitate investigation and remediation, ultimately speeding up time to STIG compliance.
  • Guide risk reduction efforts: Visualization of insights help with prioritization of security and compliance tasks reducing risk in the most efficient manner.

How is SAF related to a DoD Software Factory?

A DoD Software Factory is the common term for a DevSecOps pipeline that meets the definition laid out in DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design. All software that ultimately achieves an ATO has to be built on a fully implemented DoD Software Factory. You can either build your own or use a pre-existing DoD Software Factory like the US Air Force’s Platform One or the US Navy’s Black Pearl.

As we saw earlier, MITRE SAF is a framework meant to help you achieve STIG compliance and is a portion of your journey towards an ATO. STIG compliance applies to both the software that you write as well as the DevSecOps platform that your software is built on. Building your own DoD Software Factory means committing to going through the ATO process and STIG compliance for the DevSecOps platform first then a second time for the end-user application.

Wrap-Up

The MITRE SAF is a huge leg up for modern, cloud-native DevSecOps software vendors that are currently navigating the labyrinth towards ATO. By providing actionable guidance, automation tooling, and a community-driven approach, SAF dramatically reduces the time to ATO. It bridges the gap between the speed of DevOps software delivery and secure, compliant applications ready for critical DoD missions with national security implications. 

Embracing SAF means more than just meeting regulatory requirements; it’s about building a resilient, efficient, and secure development pipeline that can adapt to evolving security demands. In an era where cybersecurity threats are evolving just as rapidly as software, leveraging frameworks like MITRE SAF is not an efficient path to compliance—it’s essential for sustained success.

Compliance Requirements for DISA’s Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs)

In the rapidly modernizing landscape of cybersecurity compliance, evolving to a continuous compliance posture is more critical than ever—particularly for organizations involved with the Department of Defense (DoD) and other government agencies. At the heart of the DoD’s modern approach to software development is the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design, commonly implemented as a DoD Software Factory

A key component of this framework is adhering to the Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) developed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). STIG compliance within the DevSecOps pipeline not only accelerates the delivery of secure software but also embeds robust security practices directly into the development process, safeguarding sensitive data and reinforcing national security.

This comprehensive guide will walk you through what STIGs are, who should care about them, the levels of STIG compliance, key categories of STIG requirements, how to prepare for the STIG compliance process, and the tools available to automate STIG implementation and maintenance.

What are STIGs and who should care?

Understanding DISA and STIGs

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is the DoD agency responsible for delivering information technology (IT) support to ensure the security of U.S. national defense systems. To help organizations meet the DoD’s rigorous security controls, DISA develops Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs).

STIGs are configuration standards that provide prescriptive guidance on how to secure operating systems, network devices, software, and other IT systems. They serve as a secure configuration standard to harden systems against cyber threats.

For example, a STIG for the open source Apache web server would specify that encryption is enabled for all traffic (incoming or outgoing). This would require the generation of SSL/TLS certificates on the server in the correct location, updating the server’s configuration file to reference this certificate and re-configuration of the server to serve traffic from a secure port rather than the default insecure port.

Who should care about STIG compliance?

STIG compliance is mandatory for any organization that operates within the DoD network or handles DoD information. This includes:

  • DoD Contractors and Vendors: Companies providing products or services to the DoD—a.k.a. the defense industrial base (DIB)—must ensure their systems comply with STIG requirements.
  • Government Agencies: Federal agencies interfacing with the DoD need to adhere to applicable STIGs.
  • DoD Information Technology Teams: IT professionals within the DoD responsible for system security must implement STIGs.

Connection to the RMF and NIST SP 800-53

The Risk Management Framework (RMF)—more formally NIST 800-37—is a framework that integrates security and risk management into IT systems as they are being developed. The STIG compliance process outlined below is directly integrated into the higher-level RMF process. As you follow the RMF, the individual steps of STIG compliance will be completed in turn.

STIGs are also closely connected to the NIST 800-53, colloquially known as the “Control Catalog”. NIST 800-53 outlines security and privacy controls for all federal information systems; the controls are not prescriptive about the implementation, only the best practices and outcomes that need to be achieved. 

As DISA developed the STIG compliance standard, they started with the NIST 800-53 controls then “tailored” them to meet the needs of the DoD; these customized security best practices are known as Security Requirements Guides (SRGs). In order to remove all ambiguity around how to meet these higher-level best practices STIGs were created with implementation specific instructions.

For example, an SRG will mandate that all systems utilize a cybersecurity best practice, such as, role-based access control (RBAC) to prevent users without the correct privileges from accessing certain systems. A STIG, on the other hand, will detail exactly how to configure an RBAC system to meet the highest security standards.

Levels of STIG Compliance

The DISA STIG compliance standard uses Severity Category Codes to classify vulnerabilities based on their potential impact on system security. These codes help organizations prioritize remediation efforts. The three Severity Category Codes are:

  1. Category I (Cat I): These are the highest risk vulnerabilities, allowing an attacker immediate access to a system or network or allowing superuser access. Due to their high risk nature, these vulnerabilities be addressed immediately.
  2. Category II (Cat II): These vulnerabilities provide information with a high potential of giving access to intruders. These findings are considered a medium risk and should be remediated promptly.
  3. Category III (Cat III): These vulnerabilities constitute the lowest risk, providing information that could potentially lead to compromise. Although not as pressing as Cat II & III issues, it is still important to address these vulnerabilities to minimize risk and enhance overall security.

Understanding these categories is crucial in the STIG process, as they guide organizations in prioritizing remediation of vulnerabilities.

Key categories of STIG requirements

Given the extensive range of technologies used in DoD environments, there are hundreds of STIGs applicable to different systems, devices, applications, and more. While we won’t list all STIG requirements here, it’s important to understand the key categories and who they apply to.

1. Operating System STIGs

Applies to: System Administrators and IT Teams managing servers and workstations

Examples:

  • Microsoft Windows STIGs: Provides guidelines for securing Windows operating systems.
  • Linux STIGs: Offers secure configuration requirements for various Linux distributions.

2. Network Device STIGs

Applies to: Network Engineers and Administrators

Examples:

  • Network Router STIGs: Outlines security configurations for routers to protect network traffic.
  • Network Firewall STIGs: Details how to secure firewall settings to control access to networks.

3. Application STIGs

Applies to: Software Developers and Application Managers

Examples:

  • Generic Application Security STIG: Outlines the necessary security best practices needed to be STIG compliant
  • Web Server STIG: Provides security requirements for web servers.
  • Database STIG: Specifies how to secure database management systems (DBMS).

4. Mobile Device STIGs

Applies to: Mobile Device Administrators and Security Teams

Examples:

  • Apple iOS STIG: Guides securing of Apple mobile devices used within the DoD.
  • Android OS STIG: Details security configurations for Android devices.

5. Cloud Computing STIGs

Applies to: Cloud Service Providers and Cloud Infrastructure Teams

Examples:

  • Microsoft Azure SQL Database STIG: Offers security requirements for Azure SQL Database cloud service.
  • Cloud Computing OS STIG: Details secure configurations for any operating system offered by a cloud provider that doesn’t have a specific STIG.

Each category addresses specific technologies and includes a STIG checklist to ensure all necessary configurations are applied. 

You can view an example of a STIG checklist for “Application Security and Development” by following this link.

How to Prepare for the STIG Compliance Process

Achieving DISA STIG compliance involves a structured approach. Here are the stages of the STIG process and tips to prepare:

Stage 1: Identifying Applicable STIGs

With hundreds of STIGs relevant to different organizations and technology stacks, this step should not be underestimated. First, conduct an inventory of all systems, devices, applications, and technologies in use. Then, review the complete list of STIGs to match each to your inventory to ensure that all critical areas requiring secure configuration are addressed. This step is essential to avoiding gaps in compliance.

Tip: Use automated tools to scan your environment then match assets to relevant STIGs.

Stage 2: Implementation

After you’ve mapped your technology to the corresponding STIGs, the process of implementing the security configurations outlined in the guides begins. This step may require collaboration between IT, security, and development teams to ensure that the configurations are compatible with the organization’s infrastructure while enforcing strict security standards. Be sure to keep detailed records of changes made.

Tip: Prioritize implementing fixes for Cat I vulnerabilities first, followed by Cat II and Cat III. Depending on the urgency and needs of the mission, ATO can still be achieved with partial STIG compliance. Prioritizing efforts increases the chances that partial compliance is permitted.

Stage 3: Auditing & Maintenance

After the STIGs have been implemented, regular auditing and maintenance are critical to ensure ongoing compliance, verifying that no deviations have occurred over time due to system updates, patches, or other changes. This stage includes periodic scans, manual reviews, and remediation of any identified gaps. Additionally, organizations should develop a plan to stay informed about new STIG releases and updates from DISA.

Tip: Establish a maintenance schedule and assign responsibilities to team members. Alternatively, adopting a policy-as-code approach to continuous compliance by embedding STIG compliance requirements “-as-code” directly into your DevSecOps pipeline, you can automate this process.

General Preparation Tips

  • Training: Ensure your team is familiar with STIG requirements and the compliance process.
  • Collaboration: Work cross-functionally with all relevant departments, including IT, security, and compliance teams.
  • Resource Allocation: Dedicate sufficient resources, including time and personnel, to the compliance effort.
  • Continuous Improvement: Treat STIG compliance as an ongoing process rather than a one-time project.

Tools to automate STIG implementation and maintenance

Automation can significantly streamline the STIG compliance process. Here are some tools that can help:

1. Anchore STIG (Static and Runtime)

  • Purpose: Automates the process of checking container images against STIG requirements.
  • Benefits:
    • Simplifies compliance for containerized applications.
    • Integrates into CI/CD pipelines for continuous compliance.
  • Use Case: Ideal for DevSecOps teams utilizing containers in their deployments.

2. SCAP Compliance Checker

  • Purpose: Provides automated compliance scanning using the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP).
  • Benefits:
    • Validates system configurations against STIGs.
    • Generates detailed compliance reports.
  • Use Case: Useful for system administrators needing to audit various operating systems.

3. DISA STIG Viewer

  • Purpose: Helps in viewing and managing STIG checklists.
  • Benefits:
    • Allows for easy navigation of STIG requirements.
    • Facilitates documentation and reporting.
  • Use Case: Assists compliance officers in tracking compliance status.

4. DevOps Automation Tools

  • Infrastructure Automation Examples: Red Hat Ansible, Perforce Puppet, Hashicorp Terraform
  • Software Build Automation Examples: CloudBees CI, GitLab
  • Purpose: Automate the deployment of secure configurations that meet STIG compliance across multiple systems.
  • Benefits:
    • Ensures consistent application of secure configuration standards.
    • Reduces manual effort and the potential for errors.
  • Use Case: Suitable for large-scale environments where manual configuration is impractical.

5. Vulnerability Management Tools

  • Examples: Anchore Secure
  • Purpose: Identify vulnerabilities and compliance issues within your network.
  • Benefits:
    • Provides actionable insights to remediate security gaps.
    • Offers continuous monitoring capabilities.
  • Use Case: Critical for security teams focused on proactive risk management.

Wrap-Up

Achieving DISA STIG compliance is mandatory for organizations working with the DoD. By understanding what STIGs are, who they apply to, and how to navigate the compliance process, your organization can meet the stringent compliance requirements set forth by DISA. As a bonus, you will enhance its security posture and reduce the potential for a security breach.

Remember, compliance is not a one-time event but an ongoing effort that requires regular updates, audits, and maintenance. Leveraging automation tools like Anchore STIG and Anchore Secure can significantly ease this burden, allowing your team to focus on strategic initiatives rather than manual compliance tasks.

Stay proactive, keep your team informed, and make use of the resources available to ensure that your IT systems remain secure and compliant.

Navigating Open Source Software Compliance in Regulated Industries

Open source software (OSS) brings a wealth of benefits; speed, innovation, cost savings. But when serving customers in highly regulated industries like defense, energy, or finance, a new complication enters the picture—compliance.

Imagine your DevOps-fluent engineering team has been leveraging OSS to accelerate product delivery, and suddenly, a major customer hits you with a security compliance questionnaire. What now? 

Regulatory compliance isn’t just about managing the risks of OSS for your business anymore; it’s about providing concrete evidence that you meet standards like FedRAMP and the Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF).

The tricky part is that the OSS “suppliers” making up 70-90% of your software supply chain aren’t traditional vendors—they don’t have the same obligations or accountability, and they’re not necessarily aligned with your compliance needs. 

So, who bears the responsibility? You do.

The OSS your engineering team consumes is your resource and your responsibility. This means you’re not only tasked with managing the security risks of using OSS but also with proving that both your applications and your OSS supply chain meet compliance standards. 

In this post, we’ll explore why you’re ultimately responsible for the OSS you consume and outline practical steps to help you use OSS while staying compliant.

Learn about CISA’s SSDF attestation form and how to meet compliance.

What does it mean to use open source software in a regulated environment?

Highly regulated environments add a new wrinkle to the OSS security narrative. The OSS developers that author the software dependencies that make up the vast majority of modern software supply chains aren’t vendors in the traditional sense. They are more of a volunteer force that allow you to re-use their work but it is a take it or leave it agreement. You have no recourse if it doesn’t work as expected, or worse, has vulnerabilities in it.

So, how do you meet compliance standards when your software supply chain is built on top of a foundation of OSS?

Who is the vendor? You are!

Whether you have internalized this or not the open source software that your developers consume is your resource and thus your responsibility.

This means that you are shouldered with the burden of not only managing the security risk of consuming OSS but also having to shoulder the burden of proving that both your applications and the your OSS supply chain meets compliance.

Open source software is a natural resource

Before we jump into how to accomplish the task set forth in the previous section, let’s take some time to understand why you are the vendor when it comes to open source software.

The common idea is that OSS is produced by a 3rd-party that isn’t part of your organization, so they are the software supplier. Shouldn’t they be the ones required to secure their code? They control and maintain what goes in, right? How are they not responsible?

To answer that question, let’s think about OSS as a natural resource that is shared by the public at large, for instance the public water supply.

This shouldn’t be too much of a stretch. We already use terms like upstream and downstream to think about the relationship between software dependencies and the global software supply chain.

Using this mental model, it becomes easier to understand that a public good isn’t a supplier. You can’t ask a river or a lake for an audit report that it is contaminant free and safe to drink. 

Instead the organization that processes and provides the water to the community is responsible for testing the water and guaranteeing its safety. In this metaphor, your company is the one processing the water and selling it as pristine bottled water. 

How do you pass the buck to your “supplier”? You can’t. That’s the point.

This probably has you asking yourself, if I am responsible for my own OSS supply chain then how to meet a compliance standard for something that I don’t have control over? Keep reading and you’ll find out.

How do I use OSS and stay compliant?

While compliance standards are often thought of as rigid, the reality is much more nuanced. Just because your organization doesn’t own/control the open source projects that you consume doesn’t mean that you can’t use OSS and meet compliance requirements.

There are a few different steps that you need to take in order to build a “reasonably secure” OSS supply chain that will pass a compliance audit. We’ll walk you through the steps below:

Step 1 — Know what you have (i.e., an SBOM inventory)

The foundation of the global software supply chain is the SBOM (software bill of materials) standard. Each of the security and compliance functions outlined in the steps below use or manipulate an SBOM.

SBOMs are the foundational component of the global software supply chain because they record the ingredients that were used to produce the application an end-user will consume. If you don’t have a good grasp of the ingredients of your applications there isn’t much hope for producing any upstream security or compliance guarantees.

The best way to create observability into your software supply chain is to generate an SBOM for every single application in your DevSecOps build pipeline—at each stage of the pipeline!

Step 2 — Maintain a historical record of application source code

To meet compliance standards like FedRAMP and SSDF, you need to be able to maintain a historical record of the source code of your applications, including: 

  • Where it comes from, 
  • Who created it, and 
  • Any modifications made to it over time.

SBOMs were designed to meet these requirements. They act as a record of how applications were built and when/where OSS dependencies were introduced. They also double as compliance artifacts that prove you are compliant with regulatory standards.

Governments aren’t content with self-attestation (at least not for long); they need hard evidence to verify that you are trustworthy. Even though SSDF is currently self-attestation only, the federal government is known for rolling out compliance frameworks in stages. First advising on best-practices, then requiring self-attestation, finally external validation via a certification process. 

The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) is a good example of this dynamic process. It recently transitioned from self-attestation to external validation with the introduction of the 2.0 release of the framework.

Step 3 — Manage your OSS vulnerabilities

Not only do you need to keep a record of applications as they evolve over time, you have to track the known vulnerabilities of your OSS dependencies to achieve compliance. Just as SBOMs prove provenance, vulnerability scans are proof that your application and its dependencies aren’t vulnerable. These scans are a crucial piece of the evidence that you will need to provide to your compliance officer as you go through the certification process. 

Remember the buck stops with you! If the OSS that your application consumes doesn’t supply an SBOM and vulnerability scan (which is essentially all OSS projects) then you are responsible to create them. There is no vendor to pass the blame to for proving that your supply chain is reasonably secure and thus compliant.

Step 4 — Continuous compliance of open source software supply chain

It is important to recognize that modern compliance standards are no longer sprints but marathons. Not only do you have to prove that your application(s) are compliant at the time of audit but you have to be able to demonstrate that it remains secure continuously in order to maintain your certification.

This can be challenging to scale but it is made easier by integrating SBOM generation, vulnerability scanning and policy checks directly into the DevSecOps pipeline. This is the approach that modern, SBOM-powered SCAs advocate for.

By embedding the compliance policy-as-code into your DevSecOps pipeline as policy gates, compliance can be maintained over time. Developers are alerted when their code doesn’t meet a compliance standard and are directed to take the corrective action. Also, these compliance checks can be used to automatically generate the compliance artifacts needed. 

You already have an automated DevSecOps pipeline that is producing and delivering applications with minimal human intervention, why not take advantage of this existing tooling to automate open source software compliance in the same way that security was integrated directly into DevOps.

Real-world Examples

To help bring these concepts to life, we’ve outlined some real-world examples of how open source software and compliance intersect:

Open source project has unfixed vulnerabilities

This is far and wide the most common issue that comes up during compliance audits. One of your application’s OSS dependencies has a known vulnerability that has been sitting in the backlog for months or even years!

There are several reasons why an open source software developer might leave a known vulnerability unresolved:

  • They prioritize a feature over fixing a vulnerability
  • The vulnerability is from a third-party dependency they don’t control and can’t fix
  • They don’t like fixing vulnerabilities and choose to ignore it
  • They reviewed the vulnerability and decided it’s not likely to be exploited, so it’s not worth their time
  • They’re planning a codebase refactor that will address the vulnerability in the future

These are all rational reasons for vulnerabilities to persist in a codebase. Remember, OSS projects are owned and maintained by 3rd-party developers who control the repository; they make no guarantees about its quality. They are not vendors.

You, on the other hand, are a vendor and must meet compliance requirements. The responsibility falls on you. An OSS vulnerability management program is how you meet your compliance requirements while enjoying the benefits of OSS.

Need to fill out a supplier questionnaire

Imagine you’re a cloud service provider or software vendor. Your sales team is trying to close a deal with a significant customer. As the contract nears signing, the customer’s legal team requests a security questionnaire. They’re in the business of protecting their organization from financial risk stemming from their supply chain, and your company is about to become part of that supply chain.

These forms are usually from lawyers, very formal, and not focused on technical attacks. They just want to know what you’re using. The quick answer? “Here’s our SBOM.” 

Compliance comes in the form of public standards like FedRAMP, SSDF, NIST, etc., and these less formal security questionnaires. Either way, being unable to provide a full accounting of the risks in your software supply chain can be a speed bump to your organization’s revenue growth and success.

Integrating SBOM scanning, generation, and management deeply into your DevSecOps pipeline is key to accelerating the sales process and your organization’s overall success.

Prove provenance

CISA’s SSDF Attestation form requires that enterprises selling software to the federal government can produce a historical record of their applications. Quoting directly: “The software producer [must] maintain provenance for internal code and third-party components incorporated into the software to the greatest extent feasible.”

If you want access to the revenue opportunities the U.S. federal government offers, SSDF attestation is the needle you have to thread. Meeting this requirement without hiring an army of compliance engineers to manually review your entire DevSecOps pipeline demands an automated OSS component observability and management system.

Often, we jump to cryptographic signatures, encryption keys, trust roots—this quickly becomes a mess. Really, just a hash of the files in a database (read: SBOM inventory) satisfies the requirement. Sometimes, simpler is better. 

Discover the “easy button” to SSDF Attestation and OSS supply chain compliance in our previous blog post.

Takeaways

OSS Is Not a Vendor—But You Are! The best way to have your OSS cake and eat it too (without the indigestion) is to:

  1. Know Your Ingredients: Maintain an SBOM inventory of your OSS supply chain.
  2. Maintain a Complete Historical Record: Keep track of your application’s source code and build process.
  3. Scan for Known Vulnerabilities: Regularly check your OSS dependencies.
  4. Continuous Compliance thru Automation: Generate compliance records automatically to scale your compliance process.

There are numerous reasons to aim for open source software compliance, especially for your software supply chain:

  • Balance Gains Against Risks: Leverage OSS benefits while managing associated risks.
  • Reduce Financial Risk: Protect your organization’s existing revenue.
  • Increase Revenue Opportunities: Access new markets that mandate specific compliance standards.
  • Avoid Becoming a Cautionary Tale: Stay ahead of potential security incidents.

Regardless of your motivation for wanting to use OSS and use it responsibly (i.e., securely and compliantly), Anchore is here to help. Reach out to our team to learn more about how to build and manage a secure and compliant OSS supply chain.

Learn the container security best practices to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

Learn the container security best practices, including open source software (OSS) security, to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

US Navy achieves ATO in days with continuous compliance and OSS risk management

Implementing secure and compliant software solutions within the Department of Defense’s (DoD) software factory framework is no small feat. 

For Black Pearl, the premier DevSecOps platform for the U.S. Navy, and Sigma Defense, a leading DoD technology contractor, the challenge was not just about meeting stringent security requirements but to empower the warfighter. 

We’ll cover how they streamlined compliance, managed open source software (OSS) risk, and reduced vulnerability overload—all while accelerating their Authority to Operate (ATO) process.

Challenge: Navigating Complex Security and Compliance Requirements

Black Pearl and Sigma Defense faced several critical hurdles in meeting the stringent security and compliance standards of the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design:

  • Achieving RMF Security and Compliance: Black Pearl needed to secure its own platform and help its customers achieve ATO under the Risk Management Framework (RMF). This involved meeting stringent security controls like RA-5 (Vulnerability Management), SI-3 (Malware Protection), and IA-5 (Credential Management) for both the platform and the applications built on it.
  • Maintaining Continuous Compliance: With the RAISE 2.0 memo emphasizing continuous ATO compliance, manual processes were no longer sufficient. The teams needed to automate compliance tasks to avoid the time-consuming procedures traditionally associated with maintaining ATO status.
  • Managing Open-Source Software (OSS) Risks: Open-source components are integral to modern software development but come with inherent risks. Black Pearl had to manage OSS risks for both its platform and its customers’ applications, ensuring vulnerabilities didn’t compromise security or compliance.
  • Vulnerability Overload for Developers: Developers often face an overwhelming number of vulnerabilities, many of which may not pose significant risks. Prioritizing actionable items without draining resources or slowing down development was a significant challenge.

“By using Anchore and the Black Pearl platform, applications inherit 80% of the RMF’s security controls. You can avoid all of the boring stuff and just get down to what everyone does well, which is write code.”

Christopher Rennie, Product Lead/Solutions Architect

Solution: Automating Compliance and Security with Anchore

To address these challenges, Black Pearl and Sigma Defense implemented Anchore, which provided:

“Working alongside Anchore, we have customized the compliance artifacts that come from the Anchore API to look exactly how the AOs are expecting them to. This has created a good foundation for us to start building the POA&Ms that they’re expecting.”

Josiah Ritchie, DevSecOps Staff Engineer

  • Managing OSS Risks with Continuous Monitoring: Anchore’s integrated vulnerability scanner, policy enforcer, and reporting system provided continuous monitoring of open-source software components. This proactive approach ensured vulnerabilities were detected and addressed promptly, effectively mitigating security risks.
  • Automated Prioritization of Vulnerabilities: By integrating the Anchore Developer Bundle, Black Pearl enabled automatic prioritization of actionable vulnerabilities. Developers received immediate alerts on critical issues, reducing noise and allowing them to focus on what truly matters.

Results: Accelerated ATO and Enhanced Security

The implementation of Anchore transformed Black Pearl’s compliance process and security posture:

  • Platform ATO in 3-5 days: With Anchore’s integration, Black Pearl users accessed a fully operational DevSecOps platform within days, a significant reduction from the typical six months for DIY builds.

“The DoD has four different layers of authorizing officials in order to achieve ATO. You have to figure out how to make all of them happy. We want to innovate by automating the compliance process. Anchore helps us achieve this, so that we can build a full ATO package in an afternoon rather than taking a month or more.”

Josiah Ritchie, DevSecOps Staff Engineer

  • Significantly reduced time spent on compliance reporting: Anchore automated compliance checks and artifact generation, cutting down hours spent on manual reviews and ensuring consistency in reports submitted to authorizing officials.
  • Proactive OSS risk management: By shifting security and compliance to the left, developers identified and remediated open-source vulnerabilities early in the development lifecycle, mitigating risks and streamlining the compliance process.
  • Reduced vulnerability overload with prioritized vulnerability reporting: Anchore’s prioritization of vulnerabilities prevented developer overwhelm, allowing teams to focus on critical issues without hindering development speed.

Conclusion: Empowering the Warfighter Through Efficient Compliance and Security

Black Pearl and Sigma Defense’s partnership with Anchore demonstrates how automating security and compliance processes leads to significant efficiencies. This empowers Navy divisions to focus on developing software that supports the warfighter. 

Achieving ATO in days rather than months is a game-changer in an environment where every second counts, setting a new standard for efficiency through the combination of Black Pearl’s robust DevSecOps platform and Anchore’s comprehensive security solutions.

If you’re facing similar challenges in securing your software supply chain and accelerating compliance, it’s time to explore how Anchore can help your organization achieve its mission-critical objectives.

Download the full case study below👇

How to build an OSS risk management program

In previous blog posts we have covered the risks of open source software (OSS) and security best practices to manage that risk. From there we zoomed in on the benefits of tightly coupling two of those best practices (SBOMs and vulnerability scanning)

Now, we’ll dig deeper into the practical considerations of integrating this paired solution into a DevSecOps pipeline. By examining the design and implementation of SBOMs and vulnerability scanning, we’ll illuminate the path to creating a holistic open source software (OSS) risk management program.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security of your organization in this white paper.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security, including open source software (OSS) security, of your organization in this white paper.

How do I integrate SBOM management and vulnerability scanning into my development process?

Ideally, you want to generate an SBOM at each stage of the software development process (see image below). By generating an SBOM and scanning for vulnerabilities at each stage, you unlock a number of novel use-cases and benefits that we covered previously.

DevSecOps lifecycle diagram with all stages to integrate SBOM generation and vulnerability scanning.

Let’s break down how to integrate SBOM generation and vulnerability scanning into each stage of the development pipeline:

Source (PLAN & CODE)

The easiest way to integrate SBOM generation and vulnerability scanning into the design and coding phases is to provide CLI (command-line interface) tools to your developers. Engineers are already used to these tools—and have a preference for them!

If you’re going the open source route, we recommend both Syft (SBOM generation) and Grype (vulnerability scanner) as easy options to get started. If you’re interested in an integrated enterprise tool then you’ll want to look at AnchoreCTL.

Developers can generate SBOMs and run vulnerability scans right from the workstation. By doing this at design or commit time developers can shift security left and know immediately about security implications of their design decisions.

If existing vulnerabilities are found, developers can immediately pivot to OSS dependencies that are clean or start a conversation with their security team to understand if their preferred framework will be a deal breaker. Either way, security risk is addressed early before any design decisions are made that will be difficult to roll back.

Build (BUILD + TEST)

The ideal location to integrate SBOM generation and vulnerability scanning during the build and test phases are directly into the organization’s continuous integration (CI) pipeline.

The same self-contained CLI tools used during the source stage are integrated as additional steps into CI scripts/runbooks. When a developer pushes a commit that triggers the build process, the new steps are executed and both an SBOM and vulnerability scan are created as outputs. 

Check out our docs site to see how AnchoreCTL (running in distributed mode) makes this integration a breeze.

If you’re having trouble convincing your developers to jump on the SBOM train, we recommend that developers think about all security scans as just another unit test that is part of their testing suite.

Running these steps in the CI pipeline delays feedback a little versus performing the check as incremental code commits are made as an application is being coded but it is still light years better than waiting till a release is code complete. 

If you are unable to enforce vulnerability scanning of OSS dependencies by your engineering team, a CI-based strategy can be a good happy medium. It is much easier to ensure every build runs exactly the same each time than it is to do the same for developers.

Release (aka Registry)

Another integration option is the container registry. This option will require you to either roll your own service that will regularly call the registry and scan new containers or use a service that does this for you.

See how Anchore Enterprise can automate this entire process by reviewing our integration docs.

Regardless of the path you choose, you will end up creating an IAM service account within your CI application which will give your SBOM and vulnerability scanning solution the access to your registries.

The release stage tends to be fairly far along in the development process and is not an ideal location for these functions to run. Most of the benefits of a shift left security posture won’t be available anymore.

If this is an additional vulnerability scanning stage—rather than the sole stage—then this is a fantastic environment to integrate into. Software supply chain attacks that target registries are popular and can be prevented with a continuous scanning strategy.

Deploy

This is the traditional stage of the SDLC (software development lifecycle) to run vulnerability scans. SBOM generation can be added on as another step in an organization’s continuous deployment (CD) runbook.

Similar to the build stage, the best integration method is by calling CLI tools directly in the deploy script to generate the SBOM and then scan it for vulnerabilities.

Alternatively, if you utilize a container orchestrator like Kubernetes you can also configure an admission controller to act as a deployment gate. The admissions controller should be configured to make a call out to a standalone SBOM generator and vulnerability scanner. 

If you’d like to understand how this is implemented with Anchore Enterprise, see our docs.

While this is the traditional location for running vulnerability scans, it is not recommended that this is the only stage to scan for vulnerabilities. Feedback about security issues would be arriving very late in the development process and prior design decisions may prevent vulnerabilities from being easily remediated. Don’t do this unless you have no other option.

Production (OPERATE + MONITOR)

This is not a traditional stage to run vulnerability scans since the goal is to prevent vulnerabilities from getting to production. Regardless, this is still an important environment to scan. Production containers have a tendency to drift from their pristine build states (DevSecOps pipelines are leaky!).

Also, new vulnerabilities are discovered all of the time and being able to prioritize remediation efforts to the most vulnerable applications (i.e., runtime containers) considerably reduces the risk of exploitation.

The recommended way to run SBOM generation and vulnerability scans in production is to run an independent container with the SBOM generator and vulnerability scanner installed. Most container orchestrators have SDKs that will allow you to integrate an SBOM generator and vulnerability scanner to the preferred administration CLI (e.g., kubectl for k8s clusters). 

Read how Anchore Enterprise integrates these components together into a single container for both Kubernetes and Amazon ECS.

How do I manage all of the SBOMs and vulnerability scans?

Tightly coupling SBOM generation and vulnerability scanning creates a number of benefits but it also creates one problem; a firehose of data. This unintended side effect is named SBOM sprawl and it inevitably becomes a headache in and of itself.

The concise solution to this problem is to create a centralized SBOM repository. The brevity of this answer downplays the challenges that go along with building and managing a new data pipeline.

We’ll walk you through the high-level steps below but if you’re looking to understand the challenges and solutions of SBOM sprawl in more detail, we have a separate article that covers that.

Integrating SBOMs and vulnerability scanning for better OSS risk management

Assuming you’ve deployed an SBOM generator and vulnerability scanner into at least one of your development stages (as detailed above in “How do I integrate SBOM management and vulnerability scanning into my development process?”) and have an SBOM repository for storing your SBOMs and/or vulnerability scans, we can now walkthrough how to tie these systems together.

  1. Create a system to pull vulnerability feeds from reputable sources. If you’re looking for a way to get started here, read our post on how to get started.
  2. Regularly scan your catalog of SBOMs for vulnerabilities, storing the results alongside the SBOMs.
  3. Implement a query system to extract insights from your inventory of SBOMs.
  4. Create a dashboard to visualize your software supply chain’s health.
  5. Build alerting automation to ping your team as newly discovered vulnerabilities are announced.
  6. Maintain all of these DIY security applications and tools. 
  7. Continue to incrementally improve on these tools as new threats emerge, technologies evolve and development processes change.

If this feels like more work than you’re willing to take on, this is why security vendors exist. See the benefits of a managed SBOM-powered SCA below.

Prefer not to DIY? Evaluate Anchore Enterprise

Anchore Enterprise was designed from the ground up to provide a reliable software supply chain security platform that requires the least amount of work to integrate and maintain. Included in the product is:

  • Out-of-the-box integrations for popular CI/CD software (e.g., GitHub, Jenkins, GitLab, etc.)
  • End-to-end SBOM management
  • Enterprise-grade vulnerability scanning with best-in-class false positives
  • Built-in SBOM drift detection
  • Remediation recommendations
  • Continuous visibility and monitoring of software supply chain health

Enterprises like NVIDIA, Cisco, Infoblox, etc. have chosen Anchore Enterprise as their “easy button” to achieve open source software security with the least amount of lift.

If you’re interested to learn more about how to roll out a complete OSS security solution without the blood, sweat and tears that come with the DIY route—reach out to our team to get a demo or try Anchore Enterprise yourself with a 15-day free trial.

Learn the container security best practices to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

Learn the container security best practices, including open source software (OSS) security, to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

SBOMs and Vulnerability Management: OSS Security in the DevSecOps Era

The rise of open-source software (OSS) development and DevOps practices has unleashed a paradigm shift in OSS security. As traditional approaches to OSS security have proven inadequate in the face of rapid development cycles, the Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) has re-made OSS vulnerability management in the era of DevSecOps.

This blog post zooms in on two best practices from our introductory article on OSS security and the software supply chain:

  1. Maintain a Software Dependency Inventory
  2. Implement Vulnerability Scanning

These two best practices are set apart from the rest because they are a natural pair. We’ll cover how this novel approach,

  • Scaled OSS vulnerability management under the pressure of rapid software delivery
  • Is set apart from legacy SCAs
  • Unlocks new use-cases in software supply chain security, OSS risk management, etc.
  • Benefits software engineering orgs
  • Benefits an organization’s overall security posture
  • Has measurably impacted modern enterprises, such as, NVIDIA, Infoblox, etc.

Whether you’re a seasoned DevSecOps professional or just beginning to tackle the challenges of securing your software supply chain, this blog post offers insights into how SBOMs and vulnerability management can transform your approach to OSS security.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security of your organization in this white paper.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security, including open source software (OSS) security, of your organization in this white paper.

Why do I need SBOMs for OSS vulnerability management?

The TL;DR is SBOMs enabled DevSecOps teams to scale OSS vulnerability management programs in a modern, cloud native environment. Legacy security tools (i.e., SCA platforms) weren’t built to handle the pace of software delivery after a DevOps face lift.

Answering this question in full requires some historical context. Below is a speed-run of how we got to a place where SBOMs became the clear solution for vulnerability management after the rise of DevOps and OSS; the original longform is found on our blog.

If you’re not interested in a history lesson, skip to the next section, “What new use-cases are unlocked with a software dependency inventory?” to get straight to the impact of this evolution on software supply chain security (SSCS).

A short history on software composition analysis (SCA)

  • SCAs were originally designed to solve the problem of OSS licensing risk
  • Remember that Microsoft made a big fuss about the dangers of OSS at the turn of the millennium
  • Vulnerability scanning and management was tacked-on later
  • These legacy SCAs worked well enough until DevOps and OSS popularity hit critical mass

How the rise of OSS and DevOps principles broke legacy SCAs

  • DevOps and OSS movements hit traction in the 2010s
  • Software development and delivery transitioned from major updates with long development times to incremental updates with frequent releases
  • Modern engineering organizations are measured and optimized for delivery speed
  • Legacy SCAs were designed to scan a golden image once and take as much as needed to do it; upwards of weeks in some cases
  • This wasn’t compatible with the DevOps promise and created friction between engineering and security
  • This meant not all software could be scanned and much was scanned after release increasing the risk of a security breach

SBOMs as the solution

  • SBOMs were introduced as a standardized data structure that comprised a complete list of all software dependencies (OSS or otherwise)
  • These lightweight files created a reliable way to scan software for vulnerabilities without the slow performance of scanning the entire application—soup to nuts
  • Modern SCAs utilize SBOMs as the foundational layer to power vulnerability scanning in DevSecOps pipelines
  • SBOMs + SCAs deliver on the performance of DevOps without compromising security

What is the difference between SBOMs and legacy SCA scanning?

SBOMs offer two functional innovations over the legacy model: 

  1. Deeper visibility into an organization’s application inventory and; 
  2. A record of changes to applications over-time.

The deeper visibility comes from the fact that modern SCA scanners identify software dependencies recursively and build a complete software dependency tree (both direct and transitive). The record of changes comes from the fact that the OSS ecosystem has begun to standardize the contents of SBOMs to allow interoperability between OSS consumers and producers.

Legacy SCAs typically only scan for direct software dependencies and don’t recursively scan for dependencies of dependencies. Also, legacy SCAs don’t generate standardized scans that can then be used to track changes over time.

What new use-cases are unlocked with an SBOM inventory?

The innovations brought by SBOMs (see above) have unlocked new use-cases that benefit both the software supply chain security niche and the greater DevSecOps world. See the list below:

OSS Dependency Drift Detection

Ideally software dependencies are only injected in source code but the reality is that CI/CD pipelines are leaky and both automated and one-off modifications are made at all stages of development. Plugging 100% of the leaks is a strategy with diminishing returns. Application drift detection is a scalable solution to this challenge.

SBOMs unlocks drift detection by creating a point-in-time record on the composition of an application at each stage of the development process. This creates an auditable record of when software builds are modified; how they are changed and who changed it. 

Software Supply Chain Attack Detection

Not all dependency injections are performed by benevolent 1st-party developers. Malicious threat actors who gain access to your organization’s DevSecOps pipeline or the pipeline of one of your OSS suppliers can inject malicious code into your applications.

An SBOM inventory creates the historical record that can identify anomalous behavior and catch these security breaches before organizational damage is done. This is a particularly important strategy for dealing with advanced persistent threats (APTs) that are expert at infiltration and stealth. For a real-world example, see our blog on the recent XZ supply chain attack.

OSS Licensing Risk Management

OSS licenses are currently undergoing the beginning of a new transformation. The highly permissive licenses that came into fashion over the last 20 years are proving to be unsustainable. As prominent open source startups amend their licenses (e.g., Hashicorp, Elastic, Redis, etc.), organizations need to evaluate these changes and how it impacts their OSS supply chain strategy.

Similar to the benefits during a security incident, an SBOM inventory acts as the source of truth for OSS licensing risk. As licenses are amended, an organization can quickly evaluate their risk by querying their inventory and identifying who their “critical” OSS suppliers are. 

Domain Expertise Risk Management

Another emerging use-case of software dependency inventories is the management of domain expertise of developers in your organization. A comprehensive inventory of software dependencies allows organization’s to map critical software to individual employee’s domain knowledge. This creates a measurement of how well resourced your engineering organization is and who owns the knowledge that could impact business operations.

While losing an employee with a particular set of skills might not have the same urgency as a security incident, over time this gap can create instability. An SBOM inventory allows organizations to maintain a list of critical OSS suppliers and get ahead of any structural risks in their organization.

What are the benefits of a software dependency inventory?

SBOM inventories create a number of benefits for tangential domains, such as, software supply chain security, risk management, etc. but there is one big benefit for the core practices of software development.

Reduced engineering and QA time for debugging

A software dependency inventory stores metadata about applications and their OSS dependencies over-time in a centralized repository. This datastore is a simple and efficient way to search and answer critical questions about the state of an organization’s software development pipeline.

Previously, engineering and QA teams had to manually search codebases and commits in order to determine the source of a rogue dependency being added to an application. A software dependency inventory combines a centralized repository of SBOMs with an intuitive search interface. Now, these time consuming investigations can be accomplished in minutes versus hours.

What are the benefits of scanning SBOMs for vulnerabilities?

There are a number of security benefits that can be achieved by integrating SBOMs and vulnerability scanning. We’ve highlighted the most important below:

Reduce risk by scaling vulnerability scanning for complete coverage

One of the side effects of transitioning to DevOps practices was that legacy SCAs couldn’t keep up with the software output of modern engineering orgs. This meant that not all applications were scanned before being deployed to production—a risky security practice!

Modern SCAs solved this problem by scanning SBOMs rather than applications or codebases. These lightweight SBOM scans are so efficient that they can keep up with the pace of DevOps output. Scanning 100% of applications reduces risk by preventing unscanned software from being deployed into vulnerable environments.

Prevent delays in software delivery

Overall organizational productivity can be increased by adopting modern, SBOM-powered SCAs that allow organizations to shift security left. When vulnerabilities are uncovered during application design, developers can make informed decisions about the OSS dependencies that they choose. 

This prevents the situation where engineering creates a new application or feature but right before it is deployed into production the security team scans the dependencies and finds a critical vulnerability. These last minute security scans can delay a release and create frustration across the organization. Scanning early and often prevents this productivity drain from occurring at the worst possible time.

Reduced financial risk during a security incident

The faster a security incident is resolved the less risk that an organization is exposed to. The primary metric that organizations track is called mean-time-to-recovery (MTTR). SBOM inventories are utilized to significantly reduce this metric and improve incident outcomes.

An application inventory with full details on the software dependencies is a prerequisite for rapid security response in the event of an incident. A single SQL query to an SBOM inventory will return a list of all applications that have exploitable dependencies installed. Recent examples include Log4j and XZ. This prevents the need for manual scanning of codebases or production containers. This is the difference between a zero-day incident lasting a few hours versus weeks.

Reduce hours spent on compliance with automation

Compliance certifications are powerful growth levers for organizations; they open up new market opportunities. The downside is that they create a lot of work for organizations. Manually confirming that each compliance control is met and providing evidence for the compliance officer to review discourages organizations from pursuing these certifications.

Providing automated vulnerability scans from DevSecOps pipelines that integrate SBOM inventories and vulnerability scanners significantly reduces the hours needed to generate and collect evidence for compliance audits.

How impactful are these benefits?

Many modern enterprises are adopting SBOM-powered SCAs and reaping the benefits outlined above. The quantifiable benefits to any organization are unique to that enterprise but anecdotal evidence is still helpful when weighing how to prioritize a software supply chain security initiative, like the adoption of an SBOM-powered SCA against other organizational priorities.

As a leading SBOM-powered SCA, Anchore has helped numerous organizations achieve the benefits of this evolution in the software industry. To get an estimate of what your organization can expect, see the case studies below:

NVIDIA

  • Reduced time to production by scanning SBOMs instead of full applications
  • Scaled vulnerability scanning and management program to 100% coverage across 1000s of containerized applications and 100,000s of containers

Read the full NVIDIA case study here >>

Infoblox

  • 75% reduction in engineering hours spent performing manual vulnerability detection
  • 55% reduction in hours allocated to retroactive remediation of vulnerabilities
  • 60% reduction in hours spent on manual compliance discovery and documentation

Read the full Infoblox case study here >>

DreamFactory

  • 75% reduction in engineering hours spent on vulnerability management and compliance
  • 70% faster production deployments with automated vulnerability scanning and management

Read the full DreamFactory case study here >>

Next Steps

Hopefully you now have a better understanding of the power of integrating an SBOM inventory into OSS vulnerability management. This “one-two” combo has unlocked novel use-cases, numerous benefits and measurable results for modern enterprises.

If you’re interested in learning more about how Anchore can help your organization achieve similar results, reach out to our team.

Learn the container security best practices to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

Learn the container security best practices, including open source software (OSS) security, to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

DreamFactory Achieves 75% Time Savings with Anchore: A Case Study in Secure API Generation

As the popularity of APIs has swept the software industry, API security has become paramount, especially for organizations in highly regulated industries. DreamFactory, an API generation platform serving the defense industry and critical national infrastructure, required an air-gapped vulnerability scanning and management solution that didn’t slow down their productivity. Avoiding security breaches and compliance failures are non-negotiables for the team to maintain customer trust.

Challenge: Security Across the Gap

DreamFactory encountered several critical hurdles in meeting the needs of its high-profile clients, particularly those in the defense community and other highly regulated sectors:

  1. Secure deployments without cloud connectivity: Many clients, including the Department of Defense (DoD), required on-premises deployments with air-gapping, breaking the assumptions of modern cloud-based security strategies.
  2. Air-gapped vulnerability scans: Despite air-gapping, these organizations still demanded comprehensive vulnerability reporting to protect their sensitive data.
  3. Building high-trust partnerships: In industries where security breaches could have catastrophic consequences, establishing trust rapidly was crucial.

As Terence Bennett, CEO of DreamFactory, explains, “The data processed by these organizations have the highest national security implications. We needed a solution that could deliver bulletproof security without cloud connectivity.”

Solution: Anchore Enterprise On-Prem and Air-Gapped 

To address these challenges, DreamFactory implemented Anchore Enterprise, which provided:

  1. Support for on-prem and air-gapped deployments: Anchore Enterprise was designed to operate in air-gapped environments, aligning perfectly with DreamFactory’s needs.
  2. Comprehensive vulnerability scanning: DreamFactory integrated Anchore Enterprise into its build pipeline, running daily vulnerability scans on all deployment versions.
  3. Automated SBOM generation and management: Every build is now cataloged and stored (as an SBOM), providing immediate transparency into the software’s components.

“By catching vulnerabilities in our build pipeline, we can inform our customers and prevent any of the APIs created by a DreamFactory install from being leveraged to exploit our customer’s network,” Bennett notes. “Anchore has helped us achieve this massive value-add for our customers.”

Results: Developer Time Savings and Enhanced Trust

The implementation of Anchore Enterprise transformed DreamFactory’s security posture and business operations:

  • 75% reduction in time spent on vulnerability management and compliance requirements
  • 70% faster production deployments with integrated security checks
  • Rapid trust development through transparency

“We’re seeing a lot of traction with data warehousing use-cases,” says Bennett. “Being able to bring an SBOM to the conversation at the very beginning completely changes the conversation and allows CISOs to say, ‘let’s give this a go’.”

Conclusion: A Competitive Edge in High-Stakes Environments

By leveraging Anchore Enterprise, DreamFactory has positioned itself as a trusted partner for organizations requiring the highest levels of security and compliance in their API generation solutions. In an era where API security is more critical than ever, DreamFactory’s success story demonstrates that with the right tools and approach, it’s possible to achieve both ironclad security and operational efficiency.


Are you facing similar challenges hardening your software supply chain in order to meet the requirements of the DoD? By designing your DevSecOps pipeline to the DoD software factory standard, your organization can guarantee to meet these sky-high security and compliance requirements. Learn more about the DoD software factory standard by downloading our white paper below.

How is Open Source Software Security Managed in the Software Supply Chain?

Open source software has revolutionized the way developers build applications, offering a treasure trove of pre-built software “legos” that dramatically boost productivity and accelerate innovation. By leveraging the collective expertise of a global community, developers can create complex, feature-rich applications in a fraction of the time it would take to build everything from scratch. However, this incredible power comes with a significant caveat: the open source model introduces risk.

Organizations inherit both the good and bad parts of the OSS source code they don’t own. This double-edged sword of open source software necessitates a careful balance between harnessing its productivity benefits and managing the risks. A comprehensive OSS security program is the industry standard best practice for managing the risk of open source software within an organization’s software supply chain.

Learn the container security best practices to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

Learn the container security best practices, including open source software security, to reduce the risk of software supply chain attacks.

What is open source software security?

Open source software security is the ecosystem of security tools (some of it being OSS!) that have developed to compensate for the inherent risk of OSS development. The security of the OSS environment was founded on the idea that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”. The reality of OSS is that the majority of it is written and maintained by single contributors. The percentage of open source software that passes the qualifier of “enough eyeballs” is miniscule.

Does that mean open source software isn’t secure? Fortunately, no. The OSS community still produces secure software but an entire ecosystem of tools ensure that this is verified—not only trusted implicitly.

What is the difference between closed source and open source software security?

The primary difference between open source software security and closed source software security is how much control you have over the source code. Open source code is public and can have many contributors that are not employees of your organization while proprietary source code is written exclusively by employees of your organization. The threat models required to manage risk for each of these software development methods are informed by these differences.

Due to the fact that open source software is publicly accessible and can be contributed to by a diverse, often anonymous community, its threat model must account for the possibility of malicious code contributions, unintentional vulnerabilities introduced by inexperienced developers, and potential exploitation of disclosed vulnerabilities before patches are applied. This model emphasizes continuous monitoring, rigorous code review processes, and active community engagement to mitigate risks. 

In contrast, proprietary software’s threat model centers around insider threats, such as disgruntled employees or lapses in secure coding practices, and focuses heavily on internal access controls, security audits, and maintaining strict development protocols. 

The need for external threat intelligence is also greater in OSS, as the public nature of the code makes it a target for attackers seeking to exploit weaknesses, while proprietary software relies on obscurity and controlled access as a first line of defense against potential breaches.

What are the risks of using open source software?

  1. Vulnerability exploitation of your application
    • The bargain that is struck when utilizing OSS is your organization gives up significant amounts of control of the quality of the software. When you use OSS you inherit both good AND bad (read: insecure) code. Any known or latent vulnerabilities in the software become your problem.
  2. Access to source code increases the risk of vulnerabilities being discovered by threat actors
    • OSS development is unique in that both the defenders and the attackers have direct access to the source code. This gives the threat actors a leg up. They don’t have to break through perimeter defenses before they get access to source code that they can then analyze for vulnerabilities.
  3. Increased maintenance costs for DevSecOps function
    • Adopting OSS into an engineering organization is another function that requires management. Data has to be collected about the OSS that is embedded in your applications. That data has to be stored and made available in case of the event of a security incident. These maintenance costs are typically incurred by the DevOps and Security teams.
  4. OSS license legal exposure
    • OSS licenses are mostly permissive for use within commercial applications but a non-trivial subset are not, or worse they are highly adversarial when used by a commercial enterprise. Organizations that don’t manage this risk increase the potential for legal action to be taken against them.

How serious are the risks associated with the use of open source software?

Current estimates are that 70-90% of modern applications are composed of open source software. This means that only 10-30% of applications developed by organizations are written by developers employed by the organization. Without having significant visibility into the security of OSS, organization’s are handing over the keys to the castle to the community and hoping for the best.

Not only is OSS a significant footprint in modern application composition but its growth is accelerating. This means the associated risks are growing just as fast. This is part of the reason we see an acceleration in the frequency of software supply chain attacks. Organizations that aren’t addressing these realities are getting caught on their back foot when zero-days are announced like the recent XZ utils backdoor.

Why are SBOMs important to open source software security?

Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) serve as the foundation of software supply chain security by providing a comprehensive “ingredient list” of all components within an application. This transparency is crucial in today’s software landscape, where modern applications are a complex web of mostly open source software dependencies that can harbor hidden vulnerabilities. 

SBOMs enable organizations to quickly identify and respond to security threats, as demonstrated during incidents like Log4Shell, where companies with centralized SBOM repositories were able to locate vulnerable components in hours rather than days. By offering a clear view of an application’s composition, SBOMs form the bedrock upon which other software supply chain security measures can be effectively built and validated.

The importance of SBOMs in open source software security cannot be overstated. Open source projects often involve numerous contributors and dependencies, making it challenging to maintain a clear picture of all components and their potential vulnerabilities. By implementing SBOMs, organizations can proactively manage risks associated with open source software, ensure regulatory compliance, and build trust with customers and partners. 

SBOMs enable quick responses to newly discovered vulnerabilities, facilitate automated vulnerability management, and support higher-level security abstractions like cryptographically signed images or source code. In essence, SBOMs provide the critical knowledge needed to navigate the complex world of open source dependencies by enabling us to channel our inner GI Joe—”knowing is half the battle” in software supply chain security.

Best practices for securing open source software?

Open source software has become an integral part of modern development practices, offering numerous benefits such as cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and community-driven innovation. However, with these advantages come unique security challenges. To mitigate risks and ensure the safety of your open source components, consider implementing the following best practices:

1. Model Security Scans as Unit Tests

Re-branding security checks as another type of unit test helps developers orient to DevSecOps principles. This approach helps developers re-imagine security as an integral part of their workflow rather than a separate, post-development concern. By modeling security checks as unit tests, you can:

  • Catch vulnerabilities earlier in the development process
  • Reduce the time between vulnerability detection and remediation
  • Empower developers to take ownership of security issues
  • Create a more seamless integration between development and security teams

Remember, the goal is to make security an integral part of the development process, not a bottleneck. By treating security checks as unit tests, you can achieve a balance between rapid development and robust security practices.

2. Review Code Quality

Assessing the quality of open source code is crucial for identifying potential vulnerabilities and ensuring overall software reliability. Consider the following steps:

  • Conduct thorough code reviews, either manually or using automated tools
  • Look for adherence to coding standards and best practices
  • Look for projects developed with secure-by-default principles
  • Evaluate the overall architecture and design patterns used

Remember, high-quality code is generally more secure and easier to maintain.

3. Assess Overall Project Health

A vibrant, active community and committed maintainers are crucial indicators of a well-maintained open source project. When evaluating a project’s health and security:

  • Examine community involvement:
    • Check the number of contributors and frequency of contributions
    • Review the project’s popularity metrics (e.g., GitHub stars, forks, watchers)
    • Assess the quality and frequency of discussions in forums or mailing lists
  • Evaluate maintainer(s) commitment:
    • Check the frequency of commits, releases, and security updates
    • Check for active engagement between maintainers and contributors
    • Review the time taken to address reported bugs and vulnerabilities
    • Look for a clear roadmap or future development plans

4. Maintain a Software Dependency Inventory

Keeping track of your open source dependencies is crucial for managing security risks. To create and maintain an effective inventory:

  • Use tools like Syft or Anchore SBOM to automatically scan your application source code for OSS dependencies
    • Include both direct and transitive dependencies in your scans
  • Generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) from the dependency scan
    • Your dependency scanner should also do this for you
  • Store your SBOMs in a central location that can be searched and analyzed
  • Scan your entire DevSecOps pipeline regularly (ideally every build and deploy)

An up-to-date inventory allows for quicker responses to newly discovered vulnerabilities.

5. Implement Vulnerability Scanning

Regular vulnerability scanning helps identify known security issues in your open source components. To effectively scan for vulnerabilities:

  • Use tools like Grype or Anchore Secure to automatically scan your SBOMs for vulnerabilities
  • Automate vulnerability scanning tools directly into your CI/CD pipeline
    • At minimum implement vulnerability scanning as containers are built
    • Ideally scan container registries, container orchestrators and even each time a new dependency is added during design
  • Set up alerts for newly discovered vulnerabilities in your dependencies
  • Establish a process for addressing identified vulnerabilities promptly

6. Implement Version Control Best Practices

Version control practices are crucial for securing all DevSecOps pipelines that utilize open source software:

  • Implement branch protection rules to prevent unauthorized changes
  • Require code reviews and approvals before merging changes
  • Use signed commits to verify the authenticity of contributions

By implementing these best practices, you can significantly enhance the security of your software development pipeline and reduce the risk intrinsic to open source software. By doing this you will be able to have your cake (productivity boost of OSS) and eat it too (without the inherent risk).

How do I integrate open source software security into my development process?

DIY a comprehensive OSS security system

We’ve written about the steps to build a OSS security system from scratch in a previous blog post—below is the TL;DR:

  • Integrate dependency scanning, SBOM generation and vulnerability scanning into your DevSecOps pipeline
  • Implement a data pipeline to manage the influx of security metadata
  • Use automated policy-as-code “security tests” to provide rapid feedback to developers
  • Automate remediation recommendations to reduce cognitive load on developers

Outsource OSS security to a turnkey vendor

Modern software composition analysis (SCA) tools, like Anchore Enterprise, are purpose built to provide you with a comprehensive OSS security system out-of-the-box. All of the same features of DIY but without the hassle of building while maintaining your current manual process.

  • Anchore SBOM: comprehensive dependency scanning, SBOM generation and management
  • Anchore Secure: vulnerability scanning and management
  • Anchore Enforce: automated security enforcement and compliance

Whether you want to scale an understaffed security to increase their reach across your organization or free your team up to focus on different priorities, the buy versus build opportunity cost is a straightforward decision.

Next Steps

Hopefully, you now have a strong understanding of the risks associated with adopting open source software. If you’re looking to continue your exploration into the intricacies of software supply chain security, Anchore has a catalog of deep dive content on our website. If you’d prefer to get your hands dirty, we also offer a 15-day free trial of Anchore Enterprise.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security of your organization in this white paper.

Learn about the role that SBOMs for the security, including open source software security, of your organization in this white paper.

SSDF Attestation Template: Battle-tested Compliance Guidance

The CISA Secure Software Development Attestation form, commonly referred to as, SSDF attestation, was released earlier this year and with any new compliance framework, knowing the exact wording and details to provide in order to meet the compliance requirements can be difficult.

We feel you here. Anchore is heavily invested in the public sector and had to generate our own SSDF attestation for our platform, Anchore Enterprise. Having gone through the process ourselves and working with a number of customers that requested our expertise on this matter, we developed a document that helps you put together an SSDF attestation that will make a compliance officer’s heart sing.

Our goal with this document is to make SSDF attestation as easy as possible and demonstrate how Anchore Enterprise is an “easy button” that you can utilize to satisfy the majority of evidence needed to achieve compliance. We have already submitted in our own SSDF attestation and been approved, so we have confidence these answers will help get you over the line. You can find our SSDF attestation guide on our docs site.

Explore SSDF attestation in-depth with this eBook. Learn the benefits of the framework and how you can benefit from it.

How do I fill out the SSDF attestation form?

This is the difficult part, isn’t it? The SSDF attestation form looks very simple at a glance, but it has a number of sections that expect evidence to be attached that details how your organization secures both your development environments and production systems. Like all compliance standards, it doesn’t specify what will or won’t meet compliance for your organization, hence the importance of the evidence.

At Anchore, we both experienced this ourselves and helped our customers navigate this ambiguity. Out of these experiences we created a document that breaks down each item and what evidence was able to achieve compliance without being rejected by a compliance officer.

We have published this document on our Docs site for all other organizations to use as a template when attempting to meet SSDF attestation compliance.

Structure of the SSDF attestation form

The SSDF attestation is divided into 3 sections:

Section I

The first section is very short, it is where you list the type of attestation you are submitting and information about the product that you are attesting to meeting compliance.

Section II

This section is also short, the form is collecting contact information. CISA wants to be able to know how to get in contact with your organization and who is responsible for any questions or concerns that need to be addressed.

Section III

For all intents and purposes, Section III is the SSDF attestation form. This is where you will provide all of the technical supporting information to demonstrate that your organization complies with the requirements set out in the SSDF attestation form. 

The guide that Anchore has developed is focused specifically on how to fill out this section in a way that will meet the expectations of CISA compliance officers.

Where do I submit the SSDF attestation form?

If you are a US government vendor you can submit your organization’s completed form on the Repository for Software Attestations and Artifacts. You will need an account that can be requested on the login page. It normally takes a few days for the account to be created. Be sure to give yourself at least a week for it to be created. This can be done ahead of time while you’re gathering the information to fill out your form.

It’s also possible you will receive requests directly to pass along the form. Not every agency will use the repository. It’s even possible you will have non-government customers asking for the form. While it’s being mandated by the government, there’s a lot of good evidence in the document.

What tooling do I need to meet SSDF attestation compliance?

There are many ways in order to meet the technical requirements of SSDF attestation but there is also a well worn path. Anchore utilizes modern DevSecOps practices and assumes that the majority of our customers do as well. Below is a list of common DevSecOps tools that are typically used to help meet SSDF compliance

Endpoint Protection

Description: Endpoint protection tools secure individual devices (endpoints) that connect to a network. They protect against malware, detect and prevent intrusions, and provide real-time monitoring and response capabilities.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Separating and protecting each environment involved in developing and building software”

Examples: Jamf, Elastic, SentinelOne, etc.

Source Control

Description: Source control systems manage changes to source code over time. They help track modifications, facilitate collaboration among developers, and maintain different versions of code.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Separating and protecting each environment involved in developing and building software”

Examples: GitHub, GitLab, etc.

CI/CD Build Pipeline

Description: Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines automate the process of building, testing, and deploying software. They help ensure consistent and reliable software delivery.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Separating and protecting each environment involved in developing and building software”

Examples: Jenkins, GitLab, GitHub Actions, etc.

Single Sign-on (SSO)

Description: SSO allows users to access multiple applications with one set of login credentials. It enhances security by centralizing authentication and reducing the number of attack vectors.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Enforcing multi-factor authentication and conditional access across the environments relevant to developing and building software in a manner that minimizes security risk;”

Examples: Okta, Google Workspace, etc.

Security Event and Incident Management (SEIM)

Description: Monitoring tools provide real-time visibility into the performance and security of systems and applications. They can detect anomalies, track resource usage, and alert on potential issues.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Implementing defensive cybersecurity practices, including continuous monitoring of operations and alerts and, as necessary, responding to suspected and confirmed cyber incidents;”

Examples: Elasticsearch, Splunk, Panther, RunReveal, etc.

Audit Logging

Description: Audit logging captures a record of system activities, providing a trail of actions performed within the software development and build environments.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Regularly logging, monitoring, and auditing trust relationships used for authorization and access: i) to any software development and build environments; and ii) among components within each environment;”

Examples: Typically a built-in feature of CI/CD, SCM, SSO, etc.

Secrets Encryption

Description: Secrets encryption tools secure sensitive information such as passwords, API keys, and certificates used in the development and build processes.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Encrypting sensitive data, such as credentials, to the extent practicable and based on risk;”

Examples: Typically a built-in feature of CI/CD and SCM

Secrets Scanning

Description: Secrets scanning tools automatically detect and alert on exposed secrets in code repositories, preventing accidental leakage of sensitive information.

SSDF Requirement: [3.1] — “Encrypting sensitive data, such as credentials, to the extent practicable and based on risk;”

Examples: Anchore Secure or other container security platforms

OSS Component Inventory (+ Provenance)

Description: These tools maintain an inventory of open-source software components used in a project, including their origins and lineage (provenance).

SSDF Requirement: [3.3] — “The software producer maintains provenance for internal code and third-party components incorporated into the software to the greatest extent feasible;”

Examples: Anchore SBOM or other SBOM generation and management platform

Vulnerability Scanning

Description: Vulnerability scanning tools automatically detect security weaknesses in code, dependencies, and infrastructure.

SSDF Requirement: [3.4] — “The software producer employs automated tools or comparable processes that check for security vulnerabilities. In addition: a) The software producer operates these processes on an ongoing basis and prior to product, version, or update releases;”

Examples: Anchore Secure or other software composition analysis (SCA) platform

Vulnerability Management and Remediation Runbook

Description: This is a process and set of guidelines for addressing discovered vulnerabilities, including prioritization and remediation steps.

SSDF Requirement: [3.4] — “The software producer has a policy or process to address discovered security vulnerabilities prior to product release; and The software producer operates a vulnerability disclosure program and accepts, reviews, and addresses disclosed software vulnerabilities in a timely fashion and according to and timelines specified in the vulnerability disclosure program or applicable policies.”

Examples: This is not necessarily a tool but an organizational SLA on security operations. For reference Anchore has included a screenshot from our vulnerability management guide.

Next Steps

If your organization currently provides software services to a federal agency or is looking to in the future, Anchore is here to help you in your journey. Reach out to our team and learn how you can integrate continuous and automated compliance directly into your CI/CD build pipeline with Anchore Enterprise.

Learn about the importance of both FedRAMP and SSDF compliance for selling to the federal government.

Ad for webinar by Anchore about how to sell software services to the federal government by achieving FedRAMP or SSDF Compliance

Anchore at Billington CyberSecurity Summit: Automating Defense in the AI Era

Are you gearing up for the 15th Annual Billington CyberSecurity Summit? So are we! The Anchore team will be front and center in the exhibition hall throughout the event, ready to showcase how we’re revolutionizing cybersecurity in the age of AI.

This year’s summit promises to be a banger, highlighting the evolution in cybersecurity as the latest iteration of AI takes center stage. While large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have been making waves across industries, the cybersecurity realm is still charting its course in this new AI-driven landscape. But make no mistake – this is no time to rest on our laurels.

As blue teams explore innovative ways to harness LLMs, cybercriminals are working overtime to weaponize the same technology. If there’s one lesson we’ve learned from every software and AI hype cycle: automation is key. As adversaries incorporate novel automations into their tactics, defenders must not just keep pace—they need to get ahead.

At Anchore, we’re all-in with this strategy. The Anchore Enterprise platform is purpose-built to automate and scale cybersecurity across your entire software development lifecycle. By automating continuous vulnerability scanning and compliance in your DevSecOps pipeline, we’re equipping warfighters with the tools they need to outpace adversaries that never sleep.

Ready to see how Anchore can transform your cybersecurity posture in the AI era? Stop by our booth for a live demo. Don’t miss this opportunity to stay ahead of the curve—book a meeting (below) with our team and take the first step towards a more secure tomorrow.

Anchore at the Billington CyberSecurity Summit

Date: September 3–6, 2024

Location: The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC

Our team is looking forward to meeting you! Book a demo session in advance to ensure a preferred slot.

Anchore’s Showcase: DevSecOps and Automated Compliance

We will be demonstrating the Anchore Enterprise platform at the event. Our showcase will focus on:

  1. Software Composition Analysis (SCA) for Cloud-Native Environments: Learn how our tools can help you gain visibility into your software supply chain and manage risk effectively.
  2. Automated SBOM Generation and Management: Discover how Anchore simplifies the creation and maintenance of Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs), the foundational component in software supply chain security.
  3. Continuous Scanning for Vulnerabilities, Secrets, and Malware: See our advanced scanning capabilities in action, designed to protect your applications across the DevSecOps pipeline or DoD software factory.
  4. Automated Compliance Enforcement: Experience how Anchore can streamline compliance with key standards such as cATO, RAISE 2.0,  NIST, CISA, and FedRAMP, saving time and reducing human error.

We invite all attendees to visit our booth to learn more about how Anchore’s DevSecOps and automated compliance solutions can enhance your organization’s security posture in the age of AI and cloud computing.

Event Highlights

Still on the fence about whether to attend? Here is a quick run-down to help get you off of the fence. This year’s summit, themed “Advancing Cybersecurity in the AI Age,” will feature more than 40 sessions and breakouts, covering critical topics such as:

  • The increasing impact of artificial intelligence on cybersecurity
  • Cloud security challenges and solutions
  • Proactive approaches to technical risk management
  • Emerging cyber risks and defense strategies
  • Data protection against breaches and insider threats
  • The intersection of cybersecurity and critical infrastructure

The event will showcase fireside chats with top government officials, including FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General CQ Brown, Jr., and U.S. Cyber Command Commander General Timothy D. Haugh, among others.

Next Steps and Additional Resources

Join us at the Billington Cybersecurity Summit to network with industry leaders, gain valuable insights, and explore innovative technologies that are shaping the future of cybersecurity. We look forward to seeing you there!

If you are interested in the Anchore Enterprise platform and can’t wait till the show, here are some resources to help get you started:

Learn about best practices that are setting new standards for security in DoD software factories.

Anchore Awarded DoD ESI DevSecOps Phase II Agreement

The Department of Defense (DoD) Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI) has awarded Anchore inclusion in its DevSecOps program, which is part of the ESI’s DevSecOps Phase II enterprise agreements.

The DoD ESI’s main objective is to streamline the acquisition process for software and services across the DoD, in order to gain significant cost savings and improve efficiency. Admittance into the ESI program validates Anchore’s commitment to be a trusted partner to the DoD, delivering advanced container vulnerability scanning as well as SBOM management solutions that meet the most stringent compliance and security requirements.

Anchore’s inclusion in the DoD ESI DevSecOps Phase II agreement is a testament to our commitment to delivering cutting-edge software supply chain security solutions. This milestone enables us to more efficiently support the DoD’s critical missions by providing them with the tools they need to secure their software development pipelines. Our continued partnership with the DoD reinforces Anchore’s position as a trusted leader in SBOM-powered DevSecOps and container security.

—Tim Zeller, EVP Sales & Marketing

The agreements also included DevSecOps luminaries Hashicorp and Rancher Government as well as Cloudbees, Infoblox, GitLab, Crowdstrike, F5 Networks; all are now part of the preferred vendor list for all DoD missions that require cybersecurity solutions, generally, and software supply chain security, specifically.

Anchore is steadily growing their presence on federal contracts and catalogues such as Iron Patriot & Minerva, GSA, 2GIT, NASA SEWP, ITES and most recently also JFAC (Joint Federated Assurance Center).

What does this mean?

Similar to the GSA Advantage marketplace, DoD missions can now procure Anchore through the fully negotiated and approved ESI Agreements on the Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP) Marketplace. 

Anchore’s History with DoD

This award continues Anchore’s deepening relationship with the DoD. Starting in 2020, the DoD has vetted and approved Anchore’s container vulnerability scanning tools. Anchore is named in both the DoD Container Image Creation and Deployment Guide and the DoD Container Hardening Process Guide as recommended solutions.

The same year, Anchore was selected by the US Air Force’s Platform One to become the software supply chain vendor to implement the best practices in the above guides for all software built on the platform. Read our case study on how Anchore partnered with Platform One to build the premier DevSecOps platform for the DoD.

The following year, Anchore won the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase III contract with Platform One to integrate directly into the Iron Bank container image process. If your image has achieved Iron Bank certification it is because Anchore’s solution has given it a passing grade. Read more about this DevSecOps success story in our case study with the Iron Bank.

Due to the success of Platform One within the US Air Force, in 2022 Anchore partnered with the US Navy to secure the Black Pearl DevSecOps platform. Similar to Platform One, Black Pearl is the go-to standard for modern software development within the Department of the Navy (DON) software development.

As Anchore continued to expand its relationship with the DoD and federal agencies, its offerings became available for purchase through the online government marketplaces and contracts such as GSA Advantage and Second Generation IT Blanket Purchase Agreements (2GIT), NASA SEWP, Iron Patriot/Minerva, ITES and JFAC. The ESI’s DevSecOps Phase II award was built on the back of all of the previous success stories that came before it. 

Achieving ATO is now easier with the inclusion of Anchore into the DoD ESI. Read our white paper on DoD software factory best practices to reach cATO or RAISE 2.0 compliance in days versus months.

We advise on best practices that are setting new standards for security and efficiency in DoD software factories, such as: Hardening container images, automation for policy enforcement and continuous monitoring for vulnerabilities.

DevSecOps Evolution: How DoD Software Factories Are Reshaping Federal Compliance

Anchore’s Vice President of Security, Josh Bressers recently did an interview with Fed Gov Today about the role of automation in DevSecOps and how it is impacting the US federal government. We’ve condensed the highlights of the interview into a snackable blog post below.

Automation is the foundation of DevSecOps

Automation isn’t just a buzzword but is actually the foundation of DevSecOps. It is what gives meaning to marketing taglines like “shift left”. The point of DevSecOps is to create automated workflows that provide feedback to software developers as they are writing the application. This unwinds the previous practice of  artificially grouping all of the “compliance” or “security” tasks into large blocks at the end of the development process. The challenge with this pattern is that it delays feedback and design decisions are made that become difficult to undo after development has completed. By inverting the narrative and automating feedback as design decisions are made, developers are able to prevent compliance or security issues before they become deeply embedded into the software.

DoD Software Factories are leading the way in DevSecOps adoption

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is at the forefront of implementing DevSecOps through their DoD software factory model. The US Navy’s Black Pearl and the Air Force’s Platform One are perfect examples of this program. These organizations are leveraging automation to streamline compliance work. Instead of relying on manual documentation ahead of Authority to Operate (ATO) reviews, automated workflows built directly into the software development pipeline provide direct feedback to developers. This approach has proven highly effective, Bressers emphasizes this in his interview:

It’s obvious why the DoD software factory model is catching on. It’s because they work. It’s not just talk, it’s actually working. There’s many organizations that have been talking about DevSecOps for a long time. There’s a difference between talking and doing. Software factories are doing and it’s amazing.

—Josh Bressers, VP of Security, Anchore

Benefits of compliance automation

By giving compliance the same treatment as security (i.e., automate all the things), tasks that once took weeks or even months, can now be completed in minutes or hours. This dramatic reduction in time-to-compliance not only accelerates development cycles but also allows teams to focus on collaboration and solution delivery rather than getting bogged down in procedural details. The result is a “shift left” approach that extends beyond security to compliance as well. When compliance is integrated early in the development process the benefits cascade down the entire development waterfall.

Compliance automation is shifting the policy checks left into the software development process. What this means is that once your application is finished; instead of the compliance taking weeks or months, we’re talking hours or minutes.

—Josh Bressers, VP of Security, Anchore

Areas for improvement

While automation is crucial, there are still several areas for improvement in DevSecOps environments. Key focus areas include ensuring developers fully understand the automated processes, improving communication between team members and agencies, and striking the right balance between automation and human oversight. Bressers emphasizes the importance of letting “people do people things” while leveraging computers for tasks they excel at. This approach fosters genuine collaboration and allows teams to focus on meaningful work rather than simply checking boxes to meet compliance requirements.

Standardizing communication workflows with integrated developer tools

Software development pipelines are primarily platforms to coordinate the work of distributed teams of developers. They act like old-fashioned switchboard operators that connect one member of the development team to the next as they hand-off work in the development production line. Leveraging developer tooling like GitLab or GitHub standardizes communication workflows. These platforms provide mechanisms for different team members to interact across various stages of the development pipeline. Teams can easily file and track issues, automatically pass or fail tests (e.g., compliance tests), and maintain a searchable record of discussions. This approach facilitates better understanding between developers and those identifying issues, leading to more efficient problem-solving and collaboration.

The government getting ahead of the private sector: an unexpected narrative inversion

In a surprising turn of events, Bressers points out that government agencies are now leading the way in DevSecOps implementation by integrating automated compliance. Historically often seen as technologically behind, federal agencies, through the DoD software factory model, are setting new standards that are likely to influence the private sector. As these practices become more widespread, contractors and private companies working with the government will need to adapt to these new requirements. This shift is evident in recent initiatives like the SSDF attestation questionnaire and White House Executive Order (EO) 14028. These initiatives are setting new expectations for federal contractors, signaling a broader move towards making compliance a native pillar of DevSecOps.

This is one of the few instances in recent memory where the government is truly leading the way. Historically the government has often been the butt of jokes about being behind in technology but these DoD software factories are absolutely amazing. The next thing that we’re going to see is the compliance expectations that are being built into these DoD software factories will seep out into the private sector. The SSDF attestation and the White House Executive Order are only the beginning. Ironically my expectation is everyone is going to have to start paying attention to this, not just federal agencies.

—Josh Bressers, VP of Security, Anchore

Next Steps

If you’re interested to learn more about how to future-proof your software supply chain with compliance automation via the DoD software factory model, be sure to read our white paper.

If you’d like to hear the interview in full, be sure to watch it on Fed Gov Today’s Youtube channel.

Introduction to the DoD Software Factory

In the rapidly evolving landscape of national defense and cybersecurity, the concept of a Department of Defense (DoD) software factory has emerged as a cornerstone of innovation and security. These software factories represent an integration of the principles and practices found within the DevSecOps movement, tailored to meet the unique security requirements of the DoD and Defense Industrial Base (DIB). 

By fostering an environment that emphasizes continuous monitoring, automation, and cyber resilience, DoD Software Factories are at the forefront of the United States Government’s push towards modernizing its software and cybersecurity capabilities. This initiative not only aims to enhance the velocity of software development but also ensures that these advancements are achieved without compromising on security, even against the backdrop of an increasingly sophisticated threat landscape.

Building and running a DoD software factory is so central to the future of software development that “Establish a Software Factory” is the one of the explicitly named plays from the DoD DevSecOps Playbook. On top of that, the compliance capstone of the authorization to operate (ATO) or its DevSecOps infused cousin the continuous ATO (cATO) effectively require a software factory in order to meet the requirements of the standard. In this blog post, we’ll break down the concept of a DoD software factory and a high-level overview of the components that make up one.

What is a DoD software factory?

A Department of Defense (DoD) Software Factory is a software development pipeline that embodies the principles and tools of the larger DevSecOps movement with a few choice modifications that conform to the extremely high threat profile of the DoD and DIB. It is part of the larger software and cybersecurity modernization trend that has been a central focus for the United States Government in the last two decades.

The goal of a DoD Software Factory is aimed at creating an ecosystem that enables continuous delivery of secure software that meet the needs of end-users while ensuring cyber resilience (a DoD catchphrase that emphasizes the transition from point-in-time security compliance to continuous security compliance). In other words, the goal is to leverage automation of software security tasks in order to fulfill the promise of the DevSecOps movement to increase the velocity of software development.

What is an example of a DoD software factory?

Platform One is the canonical example of a DoD software factory. Run by the US Air Force, it offers both a comprehensive portfolio of software development tools and services. It has come to prominence due to its hosted services like Repo One for source code hosting and collaborative development, Big Bang for a end-to-end DevSecOps CI/CD platform and the Iron Bank for centralized container storage (i.e., container registry). These services have led the way to demonstrating that the principles of DevSecOps can be integrated into mission critical systems while still preserving the highest levels of security to protect the most classified information.

If you’re interested to learn more about how Platform One has unlocked the productivity bonus of DevSecOps while still maintaining DoD levels of security, watch our webinar with Camdon Cady, Chief of Operations and Chief Technology Officer of Platform One.

Who does it apply to?

Federal Service Integrators (FSI)

Any organization that works with the DoD as a federal service integrator will want to be intimately familiar with DoD software factories as they will either have to build on top of existing software factories or, if the mission/program wants to have full control over their software factory, be able to build their own for the agency.

Department of Defense (DoD) Mission

Any Department of Defense (DoD) mission will need to be well-versed on DoD software factories as all of their software and systems will be required to run on a software factory as well as both reach and maintain a cATO.

What are the components of a DoD Software Factory?

A DoD software factory is composed of both high-level principles and specific technologies that meet these principles. Below are a list of some of the most significant principles of a DoD software factory:

Principles of DevSecOps embedded into a DoD software factory

  1. Breakdown organizational silos
    • This principle is borrowed directly from the DevSecOps movement, specifically the DoD aims to integrate software development, test, deployment, security and operations into a single culture with the organization.
  2. Open source and reusable code
    • Composable software building blocks is another principle of the DevSecOps that increases productivity and reduces security implementation errors from developers writing secure software packages that they are not experts in.
  3. Immutable Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC)
    • This principle focuses on treating the infrastructure that software runs on as ephemeral and managed via configuration rather than manual systems operations. Enabled by cloud computing (i.e., hardware virtualization) this principle increases the security of the underlying infrastructure through templated secure-by-design defaults and reliability of software as all infrastructure has to be designed to fail at any moment.
  4. Microservices architecture (via containers)
    • Microservices are a design pattern that creates smaller software services that can be built and scale independently of each other. This principle allows for less complex software that only performs a limited set of behavior.
  5. Shift Left
    • Shift left is the DevSecOps principle that re-frames when and how security testing is done in the software development lifecycle. The goal is to begin security testing while software is being written and tested rather than after the software is “complete”. This prevents insecure practices from cascading into significant issues right as software is ready to be deployed.
  6. Continuous improvement through key capabilities
    • The principle of continuous improvement is a primary characteristic of the DevSecOps ethos but the specific key capabilities that are defined in the DoD DevSecOps playbook are what make this unique to the DoD.
  7. Define a DevSecOps pipeline
    • A DevSecOps pipeline is the system that utilizes all of the preceding principles in order to create the continuously improving security outcomes that is the goal of the DoD software factory program.
  8. Cyber resilience
    • Cyber resiliency is the goal of a DoD software factory, is it defined as, “the ability to anticipate, withstand, recover from, and adapt to adverse conditions, stresses, attacks, or compromises on the systems that include cyber resources.”

Common tools and systems of a DoD software factory

  1. Code Repository (e.g., Repo One)
    • Where software source code is stored, managed and collaborated on.
  2. CI/CD Build Pipeline (e.g., Big Bang)
    • The system that automates the creation of software build artifacts, tests the software and packages the software for deployment.
  3. Artifact Repository (e.g., Iron Bank)
    • The storage system for software components used in development and the finished software artifacts that are produced from the build process.
  4. Runtime Orchestrator and Platform (e.g., Big Bang)
    • The deployment system that hosts the software artifacts pulled from the registry and keeps the software running so that users can access it.

How do I meet the security requirements for a DoD Software Factory? (Best Practices)

Use a pre-existing software factory

The benefit of using a pre-existing DoD software factory is the same as using a public cloud provider; someone else manages the infrastructure and systems. What you lose is the ability to highly customize your infrastructure to your specific needs. What you gain is the simplicity of only having to write software and allow others with specialized skill sets to deal with the work of building and maintaining the software infrastructure. When you are a car manufacturer, you don’t also want to be a civil engineering firm that designs roads.

To view existing DoD software factories, visit the Software Factory Ecosystem Coalition website.

Map of all DoD software factories in the US.

Roll your own by following DoD best practices 

If you need the flexibility and customization of managing your own software factory then we’d recommend following the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design as the base framework. There are a few software supply chain security recommendations that we would make in order to ensure that things go smoothly during the authorization to operate (ATO) process:

  1. Continuous vulnerability scanning across all stages of CI/CD pipeline
    • Use a cloud-native vulnerability scanner that can be directly integrated into your CI/CD pipeline and called automatically during each phase of the SDLC
  2. Automated policy checks to enforce requirements and achieve ATO
    • Use a cloud-native policy engine in tandem with your vulnerability scanner in order to automate the reporting and blocking of software that is a security threat and a compliance risk
  3. Remediation feedback
    • Use a cloud-native policy engine that can provide automated remediation feedback to developers in order to maintain a high velocity of software development
  4. Compliance (Trust but Verify)
    • Use a reporting system that can be directly integrated with your CI/CD pipeline to create and collect the compliance artifacts that can prove compliance with DoD frameworks (e.g., CMMC and cATO)
  5. Air-gapped system

Is a software factory required in order to achieve cATO?

Technically, no. Effectively, yes. A cATO requires that your software is deployed on an Approved DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design not a software factory specifically. If you build your own DevSecOps platform that meets the criteria for the reference design then you have effectively rolled your own software factory.

How Anchore can help

The easiest and most effective method for achieving the security guarantees that a software factory is required to meet for its software supply chain are by using: 

  1. An SBOM generation tool that integrates directly into your software development pipeline
  2. A container vulnerability scanner that integrates directly into your software development pipeline
  3. A policy engine that integrates directly into your software development pipeline
  4. A centralized database to store all of your software supply chain security logs
  5. A query engine that can continuously monitor your software supply chain and automate the creation of compliance artifacts

These are the primary components of both Anchore Enterprise and Anchore Federal cloud native, SBOM-powered software composition analysis (SCA) platforms that provide an end-to-end software supply chain security to holistically protect your DevSecOps pipeline and automate compliance. This approach has been validated by the DoD, in fact the DoD’s Container Hardening Process Guide specifically named Anchore Federal as a recommended container hardening solution.

Learn more about how Anchore fuses DevSecOps and DoD software factories.

Conclusion and Next Steps

DoD software factories can come off as intimidating at first but hopefully we have broken them down into a more digestible form. At their core they reflect the best of the DevSecOps movement with specific adaptations that are relevant to the extreme threat environment that the DoD has to operate in, as well as, the intersecting trend of the modernization of federal security compliance standards.

If you’re looking to dive deeper into all things DoD software factory, we have a white paper that lays out the 6 best practices for container images in highly secure environments. Download the white paper below.

Navigating the Updates to cATO: Critical Changes & Practical Advice for DoD Programs

On April 11, the US Department of Defense (DoD)’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) released the DevSecOps Continuous Authorization Implementation Guide, marking the next step in the evolution of the DoD’s efforts to modernize its security and compliance ecosystem. This guide is part of a larger trend of compliance modernization that is transforming the US public sector and the global public sector as a whole. It aims to streamline and enhance the processes for achieving continuous authorization to operate (cATO), reflecting a continued push to shift from traditional, point-in-time authorizations to operate (ATOs) to a more dynamic and ongoing compliance model.

The new guide introduces several significant updates, including the introduction of specific security and development metrics required to achieve cATO, comprehensive evaluation criteria, practical advice on how to meet cATO requirements and a special emphasis on software supply chain security via software bills of material (SBOMs).

We break down the updates that are important to highlight if you’re already familiar with the cATO process. If you’re looking for a primer on cATO to get yourself up to speed, read our original blog post or click below to watch our webinar on-demand.

Continuous Authorization Metrics

A new addition to the corpus of information on cATO is the introduction of specific security and software development metrics that are required to be continuously monitored. Many of these come from the private sector DevSecOps best practices that have been honed by organizations at the cutting edge of this field, such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon.

We’ve outlined the major ones below.

  1. Mean Time to Patch Vulnerabilities:
    • Description: Average time between the identification of a vulnerability in the DevSecOps Platform (DSOP) or application and the successful production deployment of a patch.
    • Focus: Emphasis on vulnerabilities with high to moderate impact on the application or mission.
  2. Trend Metrics:
    • Description: Metrics associated with security guardrails and control gates PASS/FAIL ratio over time.
    • Focus: Show improvements in development team efforts at developing secure code with each new sprint and the system’s continuous improvement in its security posture.
  3. Feedback Communication Frequency:
    • Description: Metrics to ensure feedback loops are in place, being used, and trends showing improvement in security posture.
  4. Effectiveness of Mitigations:
    • Description: Metrics associated with the continued effectiveness of mitigations against a changing threat landscape.
  5. Security Posture Dashboard Metrics:
    • Description: Metrics showing the stage of application and its security posture in the context of risk tolerances, security control compliance, and security control effectiveness results.
  6. Container Metrics:
    • Description: Measure the age of containers against the number of times they have been used in a subsystem and the residual risk based on the aggregate set of open security issues.
  7. Test Metrics:
    • Description: Percentage of test coverage passed, percentage of passing functional tests, count of various severity level findings, percentage of threat actor actions mitigated, security findings compared to risk tolerance, and percentage of passing security control compliance.

The overall thread with the metrics required is to quickly understand whether the overall security of the application is improving. If they aren’t this is a sign that something within the system is out of balance and is in need of attention.

Comprehensive and detailed evaluation criteria

Tucked away in Appendix B. “Requirements” is a detailed table that spells out the individual requirements that need to be met in order to achieve a cATO. This table is meant to improve the cATO process so that the individuals in a program that are implementing the requirements know the criteria they will be evaluated against. The goal being to reduce the amount of back-and-forth between the program and the Authorizing Official (AO) that is evaluating them.

Practical Implementation Advice

The ecosystem for DSOPs has evolved significantly since cATO was first announced in February 2022. Over the past 2+ years, a number of early adopters, such as Platform One have blazed a trail and learned all of the painful lessons in order to smooth the path for other organizations that are now looking to modernize their development practices. The advice in the implementation guide is a high-signal, low-noise distillation of these hard won lessons learned.

DevSecOps Platform (DSOP) Advice

If you’re more interested in writing software than operating a DSOP then you’ll want to focus your attention on pre-existing DSOP’s, commonly called DoD software factories.

We have written both a primer for understanding DoD software factories and an index of additional content that can quickly direct you to deep dives in specific content you’re interested in.

If you love to get your hands dirty and would rather have full control over your development environment, just be aware that this is specifically recommended against:

Build a new DSOP using hardened components (this is the most time-consuming approach and should be avoided if possible).

DevSecOps Culture Advice

While the DevSecOps culture and process advice is well-known in the private sector, it is still important to emphasize in the federal context that is currently transitioning to the modern software development paradigm.

  1. Bring the security team at the start of development and keep them involved throughout.
  2. Create secure agile processes to support the continued delivery of value without the introduction of unnecessary risk

Continuous Monitoring (ConMon) Advice

Ensure that all environments are continuously monitored (e.g., development, test and production). Utilize the security data collected from these environments to power and inform thresholds and triggers for active incident response. ConMon and ACD are separate pillars of cATO but need to be integrated so that information is flowing to the systems that can make best use of it. It is this integrated approach that delivers on the promise of significantly improved security and risk outcomes.

Active Cyber Defense (ACD) Advice

Both a Security Operations Center (SOC) and external CSSP are needed in order to achieve the Active Cyber Defense (ACD) pillar of cATO. On top of that, there also has to be a detailed incident response plan and personnel trained on it. While cATO’s goal is to automate as much of the security and incident response system as possible to reduce the burden of manual intervention. Humans in the loop are still an important component in order to tune the system and react with appropriate urgency.

Software Supply Chain Security (SSCS) Advice

The new implementation guide is very clear that a DSOP creates SBOMs for itself and any applications that pass through it. This is a mega-trend that has been sweeping over the software supply chain security industry for the past decade. It is now the consensus that SBOMs are the best abstraction and practice for securing software development in the age of composible and complex software.

The 3 (+1) Pillars of cATO

While the 3 pillars of cATO and its recommendation for SBOMs as the preferred software supply chain security tool were called out in the original cATO memo, the recently published implementation guide again emphasizes the importance of the 3 (+1) pillars of cATO.

The guide quotes directly from the memo:

In order to prevent any combination of human errors, supply chain interdictions, unintended code, and support the creation of a software bill of materials (SBOM), the adoption of an approved software platform and development pipeline(s) are critical.

This is a continuation of the DoD specifically, and the federal government generally, highlighting the importance of software supply chain security and software bills of material (SBOMs) as “critical” for achieving the 3 pillars of cATO. This is why Anchore refers to this as the “3 (+1) Pillars of cATO“.

  1. Continuous Monitoring (ConMon)
  2. Active Cyber Defense (ACD)
  3. DevSecOps (DSO) Reference Design
  4. Secure Software Supply Chain (SSSC)

Wrap-up

The release of the new DevSecOps Continuous Authorization Implementation Guide marks a significant advancement in the DoD’s approach to cybersecurity and compliance. With a focus on transitioning from traditional point-in-time Authorizations to Operate (ATOs) to a continuous authorization model, the guide introduces comprehensive updates designed to streamline the cATO process. The goal being to ease the burden of the process and help more programs modernize their security and compliance posture.

If you’re interested to learn more about the benefits and best practices of utilizing a DSOP (i.e., DoD software factory) in order to transform cATO compliance into a “switch flip”. Be sure to pick up a copy of our “DevSecOps for a DoD Software Factory: 6 Best Practices for Container Images” white paper. Click below to download.

Best Practices for DevSecOps in DoD Software Factories: A White Paper

The Department of Defense’s (DoD) Software Modernization Implementation Plan, unveiled in March 2023, represents a significant stride towards transforming software delivery timelines from years to days. This ambitious plan leverages the power of containers and modern DevSecOps practices within a DoD software factory.

Our latest white paper, titled “DevSecOps for a DoD Software Factory: 6 Best Practices for Container Images,” dives deep into the security practices for securing container images in a DoD software factory. It also details how Anchore Federal—a pivotal tool within this framework—supports these best practices to enhance security and compliance across multiple DoD software factories including the US Air Force’s Platform One, Iron Bank, and the US Navy’s Black Pearl.

Key Insights from the White Paper

  • Securing Container Images: The paper outlines six essential best practices ranging from using trusted base images to continuous vulnerability scanning and remediation. Each practice is backed by both DoD guidance and relevant NIST standards, ensuring alignment with federal requirements.
  • Role of Anchore Federal: As a proven tool in the arena of container image security, Anchore Federal facilitates these best practices by integrating seamlessly into DevSecOps workflows, providing continuous scanning, and enabling automated policy enforcement. It’s designed to meet the stringent security needs of DoD software factories, ready for deployment even in classified and air-gapped environments.
  • Supporting Rapid and Secure Software Delivery: With the DoD’s shift towards software factories, the need for robust, secure, and agile software delivery mechanisms has never been more critical. Anchore Federal is the turnkey solution for automating security processes and ensuring that all container images meet the DoD’s rigorous security and compliance requirements.

Download the White Paper Today

Empower your organization with the insights and tools needed for secure software delivery within the DoD ecosystem. Download our white paper now and take a significant step towards implementing best-in-class DevSecOps practices in your operations. Equip your teams with the knowledge and technology to not just meet, but exceed the modern security demands of the DoD’s software modernization efforts.

An Outline for Getting Up to Speed on the DoD Software Factory

This blog post is meant as a gateway to all things DoD software factory. We highlight content from across the Anchore universe that can help anyone get up to speed on what a DoD software factory is, why to use it and how to build one. This blog post is meant as an index to be scanned for the topics that are most interesting to you as the reader with links to more detailed content.

What is a DoD Software Factory?

The short answer is a DoD Software Factory is an implementation of the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design. A slightly longer answer comes from our DoD software factory primer:

A Department of Defense (DoD) Software Factory is a software development pipeline that embodies the principles and tools of the larger DevSecOps movement with a few choice modifications that conform to the extremely high threat profile of the DoD and DIB.

Note that the diagram below looks like a traditional DevOps pipeline. The difference being that there are security controls layered into this environment that automate software component inventory, vulnerability scanning and policy enforcement to meet the requirements to be considered a DoD software factory.

Got the basics down? Go deeper and learn how Anchore can help you put the Sec into DevSecOps Reference Design by reading our DoD Software Factory Best Practices white paper.

Why do I want to utilize a DoD Software Factory?

For DoD programs, the primary reason to utilize a DoD software factory is that it is a requirement for achieving a continuous authorization to operation (cATO). The cATO standard specifically calls out that software is developed in a system that meets the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design. A DoD software factory is the generic implementation of this design standard.

For Federal Service Integrators (FSIs), the biggest reason to utilize a DoD software factory is that it is a standard approach to meeting DoD compliance and certification standards. By meeting a standard, such as CMMC Level 2, you expand your opportunity to work with DoD programs.

Continuous Authorization to Operate (cATO)

If you’re looking for more information on cATO, Anchore has written a comprehensive guide on navigating the cATO process that can be found on our blog:

DevSecOps for a DoD Software Factory: 6 Best Practices for Container Images

The shift from traditional software delivery to DevSecOps in the Department of Defense (DoD) represents a crucial evolution in how software is built, secured, and deployed with a focus on efficiencies and speed. Our white paper advises on best practices that are setting new standards for security and efficiency in DoD software factories.

Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

The CMMC is the certification standard that is used by the DoD to vet FSIs from the defense industrial base (DIB). This is the gold standard for demonstrating to the DoD that your organization takes security seriously enough to work with the highest standards of any DoD program. The security controls that the CMMC references when determining certification are outlined in NIST 800-171. There are 17 total families of security controls that an organization has to meet in order to meet the CMMC Level 2 certification and a DoD software factory can help check a number of these off of the list.

The specific families of controls that a DoD software factory helps meet are:

  • Access Control (AC)
  • Audit and Accountability (AU)
  • Configuration Management (CM)
  • Incident Response (IR)
  • Maintenance (MA)
  • Risk Assessment (RA)
  • Security Assessment and Authorization (CA)
  • System and Communications Protection (SC)
  • System and Information Integrity (SI)
  • Supply Chain Risk Management (SR)

If you’re looking for more information on how apply software supply chain security to meet the CMMC, Anchore has published two blog posts on the topic:

NIST SP 800-171 & Controlled Unclassified Data: A Guide in Plain English

  • NIST SP 800-171 is the canonical list of security controls for meeting CMMC Level 2 certification. Anchore has broken down the entire 800-171 standard to give you an easy to understand overview.

Automated Policy Enforcement for CMMC with Anchore Enterprise

  • Policy Enforcement is the backbone of meeting the monitoring, enforcement and reporting requirements of the CMMC. In this blog post, we break down how Anchore Federal can meet a number of the controls specifically related to software supply chain security that are outlined in NIST 800-171.

How do I meet the DevSecOps Reference Design requirements?

The easy answer is by utilizing a DoD Software Factory Managed Service Provider (MSP). Below in the User Stories section, we deep dive into the US Air Force’s Platform One given they are the preeminent DoD software factory.

The DIY answer involves carefully reading and implementing the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Reference Design. This document is massive but there are a few shortcuts you can utilize to help expedite your journey. 

Container Hardening

Deciding to utilize software containers in a DevOps pipeline is almost a foregone conclusion at this point. What is less well known is how to secure your containers, especially to meet the standards of a DoD software factory.

The DoD has published two guides that can help with this. The first is the DoD Container Hardening Guide, and the second is the Container Image Creation and Deployment Guide. Both name Anchore Federal as an approved container hardening scanner.

Anchore has published a number of blogs and even a white paper that condense the information in both of these guides into more digestible content. See below:

Container Security for U.S. Government Information Systems

  • This comprehensive white paper breaks down how to achieve a container build and deployment system that is hardened to the standards of a DoD software factory.

Enforcing the DoD Container Image and Deployment Guide with Anchore Federal

  • This blog post is great for those who are interested to see how Anchore Federal can turn all of the requirements of the DoD Container Hardening Guide and the Container Image Creation and Deployment Guide into an easy button.

Deep Dive into Anchore Federal’s Container Image Inspection and Vulnerability Management

  • This blog post deep dives into how to utilize Anchore Federal to find container vulnerabilities and alert or report on whether they are violating the security compliance required to be a DoD software factory.

Policy-based Software Supply Chain Security and Compliance

The power of a policy-based approach to software supply chain security is that it can be integrated directly into a DevOps pipeline and automate a significant amount of alerting, reporting and enforcement work. The blog posts below go into depth on how this automated approach to security and compliance can uplevel a DoD software factory:

A Policy Based Approach to Container Security & Compliance

  • This blog details how a policy-based platform works and how it can benefit both software supply chain security and compliance. 

The Power of Policy-as-Code for the Public Sector

  • This follow-up to the post above shows how the policy-based security platform outlined in the first blog post can have significant benefits to public sector organizations that have to focus on both internal information security and how to prove they are compliant with government standards.

Benefits of Static Image Inspection and Policy Enforcement

  • Getting a bit more technical this blog details how a policy-based development workflow can be utilized as a security gate with deployment orchestration systems like Kubernetes.

Getting Started With Anchore Policy Bundles

  • An even deeper dive into what is possible with the policy-based security system provided by Anchore Enterprise, this blog gets into the nitty-gritty on how to configure policies to achieve specific security outcomes.

Unpacking the Power of Policy at Scale in Anchore

  • This blog shows how a security practitioner can extend the security signals that Anchore Enterprise collects with the assistance of a more flexible data platform like New Relic to derive more actionable insights.

Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG)

The Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) are fantastic technical guides for configuring off the shelf software to DoD hardening standards. Anchore being a company focused on making security and compliance as simple as possible has written a significant amount about how to utilize STIGs and achieve STIG compliance, especially for container-based DevSecOps pipelines. Exactly the kind of software development environments that meet the standards of a DoD software factory. View our previous content below:

4 Ways to Prepare your Containers for the STIG Process

  • In this blog post, we give you four quick tips to help you prepare for the STIG process for software containers. Think of this as the amuse bouche to prepare you for the comprehensive white paper that comes next.

Navigating STIG Compliance for Containers

  • As promised, this is the extensive document that walks you through how to build a DevSecOps pipeline based on containers that is both high velocity and secure. Perfect for organizations that are aiming to roll their own DoD software factory.

User Stories

Anchore has been supporting FSIs and DoD programs to build DevSecOps programs that meet the criteria to be called a DoD software factory for the past decade. We can write technical guides and best practices documents till time ends but sometimes the best lessons are learned from real-life stories. Below are user stories that help fill in all of the details about how a DoD software factory can be built from scratch:

DoD’s Pathway to Secure Software

  • Join Major Camdon Cady of Platform One and Anchore’s VP of Security, Josh Bressers as they discuss the lessons learned from building a DoD software factory from the ground up. Watch this on-demand webinar to get all of the details in a laid back and casual conversation between two luminaries in their field.

Development at Mach Speed

  • If you prefer a written format over video, this case study highlights how Platform One utilized Red Hat OpenShift and Anchore Federal to build their DoD software factory that has become the leading Managed Service Provider for DoD programs.

Conclusion

Similar to how Cloud has taken over the infrastructure discussion in the enterprise world, DoD software factories are quickly becoming the go-to solution for DoD programs and the FSIs that support them. Delivering on the promise of the DevOps movement of high velocity development without compromising security, a DoD software factory is the one-stop shop to upgrade your software development practice into the modern age and become compliant as a bonus! If you’re looking for an easy button to infuse your DevOps pipeline with security and compliance without the headache of building it yourself, take a look at Anchore Federal and how it helps organizations layer software supply chain security into a DoD software factory and achieve a cATO.

Navigating Continuous Authority To Operate (cATO): A Guide for Getting Started

Continuous Authority to Operate (cATO), sometimes known as Rapid ATO, is becoming necessary as the DoD and civilian agencies put more applications and data in the cloud. Speed and agility are becoming increasingly critical to the mission as the government and federal system integrators seek new features and functionalities to support the warfighter and other critical U.S. government priorities.

In this blog post, we’ll break down the concept of cATO in understandable terms, explain its benefits, explore the myths and realities of cATO and show how Anchore can help your organization meet this standard.

What is Continuous Authority To Operate (cATO)?

Continuous ATO is the merging of traditional authority to operate (ATO) risk management practices with flexible and responsive DevSecOps practices to improve software security posture.

Traditional Risk Management Framework (RMF) implementations focus on obtaining authorization to operate once every three years. The problem with this approach is that security threats aren’t static, they evolve. cATO is the evolution of this framework which requires the continual authorization of software components, such as containers, by building security into the entire development lifecycle using DevSecOps practices. All software development processes need to ensure that the application and its components meet security levels equal to or greater than what an ATO requires.

You authorize once and use the software component many times. With a cATO, you gain complete visibility into all assets, software security, and infrastructure as code.

By automating security, you are then able to obtain and maintain cATO. There’s no better statement about the current process for obtaining an ATO than this commentary from Mary Lazzeri with Federal Computer Week:

“The muddled, bureaucratic process to obtain an ATO and launch an IT system inside government is widely maligned — but beyond that, it has become a pervasive threat to system security. The longer government takes to launch a new-and-improved system, the longer an old and potentially insecure system remains in operation.”

The Three Pillars of cATO

To achieve cATO, an Authorizing Official (AO) must demonstrate three main competencies:

  1. Ongoing visibility: A robust continuous monitoring strategy for RMF controls must be in place, providing insight into key cybersecurity activities within the system boundary.
  2. Active cyber defense: Software engineers and developers must be able to respond to cyber threats in real-time or near real-time, going beyond simple scanning and patching to deploy appropriate countermeasures that thwart adversaries.
  3. Adoption of an approved DevSecOps reference design: This involves integrating development, security, and operations to close gaps, streamline processes, and ensure a secure software supply chain.

Looking to learn more about the DoD DevSecOps Reference Design? It’s commonly referred to as a DoD Software Factory. Anchore has been helping organizations and agencies put the Sec in DevSecOps by securing traditional software factories, transforming them into DoD software factories.

Continuous ATO vs. ATO

The primary difference between traditional ATOs and continuous ATOs is the frequency at which a system seeks to prove the validity of its security claims. ATOs require that a system can prove its security once every three years whereas cATO systems prove their security every moment that the system is running.

The Benefits of Continuous ATO

Continuous ATO is essentially the process of applying DevSecOps principles to the compliance framework of Authority to Operate. Automating the individual compliance processes speeds up development work by avoiding repetitive tasks to obtain permission. Next, we’ll explore additional (and sometimes unexpected) benefits of cATO.

Increase Velocity of System Deployment

CI/CD systems and the DevSecOps design pattern were created to increase the velocity at which new software can be deployed from development to production. On top of that, Continuous ATOs can be more easily scaled to accommodate changes in the system or the addition of new systems, thanks to the automation and flexibility offered by DevSecOps environments.

Reduce Time and Complexity to Achieve an ATO

With the cATO approach, you can build a system to automate the process of generating the artifacts to achieve ATO rather than manually producing them every three years. This automation in DevSecOps pipelines helps in speeding up the ATO process, as it can generate the artifacts needed for the AO to make a risk determination. This reduces the time spent on manual reviews and approvals. Much of the same information will be requested for each ATO, and there will be many overlapping security controls. Designing the DevSecOps pipeline to produce the unique authorization package for each ATO from the corpus of data and information available can lead to increased efficiency via automation and re-use.

No Need to Reinvent AND Maintain the Wheel

When you inherit the security properties of the DevSecOps reference design or utilize an approved managed platform, then the provider will shoulder the burden. Someone else has already done the hard work of creating a framework of tools that integrate together to achieve cATO, re-use their effort to achieve cATO for your system. 

Alternatively, you can utilize a platform provider, such as Platform One, Kessel Run, Black Pearl, or the Army Software Factory to outsource the infrastructure management.

Learn how Anchore helped Platform One achieve cATO and become the preeminent DoD software factory:

Myths & Realities

Myth or Reality?: DevSecOps can be at Odds with cATO

Myth! DevSecOps in the DoD and civilian government agencies are still the domain of early adopters. The strict security and compliance requirements — the ATO in particular — of the federal government make it a fertile ground for DevSecOps adoption. Government leaders such as Nicolas Chaillan, former chief software officer for the United States Air Force, are championing DevSecOps standards and best practices that the DoD, federal government agencies, and even the commercial sector can use to launch their own DevSecOps initiatives.

One goal of DevSecOps is to develop and deploy applications as quickly as possible. An ATO is a bureaucratic morass if you’re not proactive. When you build a DevSecOps toolchain that automates container vulnerability scanning and other areas critical to ATO compliance controls, can you put in the tools, reporting, and processes to test against ATO controls while still in your development environment.

DevSecOps, much like DevOps, suffers from a marketing problem as vendors seek to spin the definitions and use cases that best suit their products. The DoD and government agencies need more champions like Chaillan in government service who can speak to the benefits of DevSecOps in a language that government decision-makers can understand.

Myth or Reality?: Agencies need to adopt DevSecOps to prepare for the cATO 

Reality! One of the cATO requirements is to demonstrate that you are aligned with an Approved DevSecOps Reference Design. The “shift left” story that DevSecOps espouses in vendor marketing literature and sales decks isn’t necessarily one size fits all. Likewise, DoD and federal agency DevSecOps play at a different level. 

Using DevSecOps to prepare for a cATO requires upfront analysis and planning with your development and operations teams’ participation. Government program managers need to collaborate closely with their contractor teams to put the processes and tools in place upfront, including container vulnerability scanning and reporting. Break down your Continuous Integration/Continuous Development (CI/CD) toolchain with an eye on how you can prepare your software components for continuous authorization.

Myth or Reality?: You need to have SBOMs for everything in your environment

Myth! However…you need to be able to show your Authorizing Official (AO) that you have “the ability to conduct active cyber defense in order to respond to cyber threats in real time.” If a zero day (like log4j) comes along you need to demonstrate you are equipped to identify the impact on your environment and remediate the issue quickly. Showing your AO that you manage SBOMs and can quickly query them to respond to threats will have you in the clear for this requirement.

Myth or Reality?: cATO is about technology and process only

Myth! As more elements of the DoD and civilian federal agencies push toward the cATO to support their missions, and a DevSecOps culture takes hold, it’s reasonable to expect that such a culture will influence the cATO process. Central tenets of a DevSecOps culture include:

  • Collaboration
  • Infrastructure as Code (IaC)
  • Automation
  • Monitoring

Each of these tenets contributes to the success of a cATO. Collaboration between the government program office, contractor’s project team leadership, third-party assessment organization (3PAO), and FedRAMP program office is at the foundation of a well-run authorization. IAC provides the tools to manage infrastructure such as virtual machines, load balancers, networks, and other infrastructure components using practices similar to how DevOps teams manage software code.

Myth or Reality?: Reusable Components Make a Difference in cATO

Reality! The growth of containers and other reusable components couldn’t come at a better time as the Department of Defense (DoD) and civilian government agencies push to the cloud driven by federal cloud initiatives and demands from their constituents.

Reusable components save time and budget when it comes to authorization because you can authorize once and use the authorized components across multiple projects. Look for more news about reusable components coming out of Platform One and other large-scale government DevSecOps and cloud projects that can help push this development model forward to become part of future government cloud procurements.

How Anchore Helps Organizations Implement the Continuous ATO Process

Anchore’s comprehensive suite of solutions is designed to help federal agencies and federal system integrators meet the three requirements of cATO.

Ongoing Visibility

Anchore Enterprise can be integrated into a build pipeline, image registry and runtime environment in order to provide a comprehensive view of the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC). On top of this, Anchore provides out-of-the-box policy packs mapped to NIST 800-53 controls for RMF, ensuring a robust continuous monitoring strategy. Real-time notifications alert users when images are out of compliance, helping agencies maintain ongoing visibility into their system’s security posture.

Active Cyber Defense

While Anchore Enterprise is integrated into the decentralized components of the SDLC, it provides a centralized database to track and monitor every component of software in all environments. This centralized datastore enables agencies to quickly triage zero-day vulnerabilities with a single database query. Remediation plans for impacted application teams can be drawn up in hours rather than days or weeks. By setting rules that flag anomalous behavior, such as image drift or blacklisted packages, Anchore supports an active cyber defense strategy for federal systems.

Adoption of an Approved DevSecOps Reference Design

Anchore aligns with the DoD DevSecOps Reference Design by offering solutions for:

  • Container hardening (Anchore DISA policy pack)
  • Container policy enforcement (Anchore Enterprise policies)
  • Container image selection (Iron Bank)
  • Artifact storage (Anchore image registry integration)
  • Release decision-making (Anchore Kubernetes Admission Controller)
  • Runtime policy monitoring (Anchore Kubernetes Automated Inventory)

Anchore is specifically mentioned in the DoD Container Hardening Process Guide, and the Iron Bank relies on Anchore technology to scan and enforce policy that ensures every image in Iron Bank is hardened and secure.

Final Thoughts

Continuous Authorization To Operate (cATO) is a vital framework for federal system integrators and agencies to maintain a strong security posture in the face of evolving cybersecurity threats. By ensuring ongoing visibility, active cyber defense, and the adoption of an approved DevSecOps reference design, software engineers and developers can effectively protect their systems in real-time. Anchore’s comprehensive suite of solutions is specifically designed to help meet the three requirements of cATO, offering a robust, secure, and agile approach to stay ahead of cybersecurity threats. 

By partnering with Anchore, federal system integrators and federal agencies can confidently navigate the complexities of cATO and ensure their systems remain secure and compliant in a rapidly changing cyber landscape. If you’re interested to learn more about how Anchore can help your organization embed DevSecOps tooling and principles into your software development process, click below to read our white paper.

Bridging the Gap Between Speed and Security: A Deep Dive into Anchore Federal’s Container Image Inspection and Vulnerability Management

In today’s DevOps environment, developers and security teams are more intertwined than ever with increased speed to production. Enterprises are using hundreds to thousands of Docker images making it more difficult to maintain an accurate list of software inventory, and track software packages and vulnerabilities across their container workloads. This becomes a recurring headache for Federal DevSecOps teams who are trying to maintain control over the environment by monitoring for unauthorized software on the information system. Per National Security Agency (NSA) guidance, security teams should actively monitor and remove unauthorized, outdated, and potentially malicious software from the information system while simultaneously making timely updates to their software stack.

Fortunately, Anchore Federal can simplify this process for DevSecOps teams and development teams alike by inspecting Docker images in all container registries, analyzing the specific software components within a given image, and then visualizing every software package for the developer in the Anchore Federal UI. For this blog post, we will explore how we can positively impact our security posture by maintaining strong configuration control over the software in our environment using Anchore Federal to analyze, inspect, and visualize the contents of each image.

Looking to learn more about how to achieve container hardening at DoD levels of security? One of the most popular technology shortcuts is to utilize a DoD software factory. Anchore has been helping organizations and agencies put the Sec in DevSecOps by securing traditional software factories, transforming them into DoD software factories.

Anchore’s Image Inspection to Support Configuration Management Best Practices

For this demo, I’ve selected Logstash version 7.2.0 from DockerHub and analyzed this image against Anchore’s DoD security policies bundle found in Anchore’s policy hub. You can also navigate to the “Policy Bundles” tab in Anchore Federal UI by navigating to the “Policy Bundles” tab where we can see that we are using the “anchore_dod_security_policies” bundle as our default policy.

After validating the DoD policies are set, we then initiate the vulnerability scan against the Logstash image. Anchore automatically analyzes the image for not only CVEs, but evaluates the entire image contents against a comprehensive list of DoD security and compliance standards using our DoD security policies bundle. Anchore Federal automatically displays the results of the image scan in our “Image Analysis” tab as depicted below:

screenshot of anchore image analysis

From the overview page, the user can easily see the compliance and vulnerability results generated against our DoD security policies. Taking this a step deeper, we then can begin inspecting the content of the image itself by navigating to the “Contents” tab. This extends beyond just a list of CVE’s, vulnerabilities and compliance checks. Anchore Federal provides the user with a total list of all of the different types of software packages, OS packages, and files that are found in the selected image:

screenshot of anchore software content view

This provides an integral point of analysis that allows the user to inventory and identify the different types of software and software packages that are within your environment. This is greatly needed across Federal organizations aiming to comply with DoD RMF and FedRAMP configuration management security controls.

Keeping the importance of configuration management in mind, Anchore Federal seamlessly integrates configuration management with security to magnify specific packages tied to vulnerabilities.

Unifying Configuration Management with Container Security

Anchore Federal allows the user to focus on adversely impacted packages by placing them front and center to the user. Navigating to the “Vulnerabilities” tab from the overview page allows you to see the adversely impacted packages. Anchore clearly displays that there is a CVE tied to the impacted Python package in the screenshot below:

screenshot of anchore vulnerabilities view

From here, the security analyst would immediately want to be alerted to the other images in their environment that are impacted by the vulnerability. Anchore Federal automatically does this for you and links that affected package across all of the images in your repository. Anchore Federal also automatically generates reports of affected packages by selecting “Other Images Sharing Package.” In this example, we can see that our Elasticsearch image is also impacted by the vulnerability tied to this Python package:

screenshot of linked packages in anchore

You can tailor the reports accordingly by using the parameters to filter on any specific package and package version. Anchore takes care of the rest and automatically informs DevSecOps teams about all of the images tied to every package containing a vulnerability. This provides teams with the vulnerability information necessary to carry out vulnerability remediation across the impacted images for their organization.

Anchore Federal takes the burden off of the DevSecOps teams by integrating configuration management with Anchore’s deep image inspection vulnerability scanning and “policy first” compliance approach. As a result, Federal organizations don’t have to worry about sacrificing configuration management. Instead, using Anchore Federal, organizations can enhance configuration control of their environment, gain the valuable insight of software packages within each container, and remediate vulnerable software packages to closure in a timely manner.