Tag: Syft

Welcome back to the second installment of our two-part series on “The Evolution of SBOMs in the DevSecOps Lifecycle”. In our first post, we explored how Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) evolve over the first 4 stages of the DevSecOps pipeline—Plan, Source, Build & Test—and how each type of SBOM serves different purposes. Some of those use-cases include: shift left vulnerability detection, regulatory compliance automation, OSS license risk management and incident root cause analysis.

In this part, we’ll continue our exploration with the final 4 stages of the DevSecOps lifecycle, examining:

• Analyzed SBOMs at the Release (Registry) stage
• Deployed SBOMs during the Deployment phase
• Runtime SBOMs in Production (Operate & Monitor stages)

As applications migrate down the pipeline, design decisions made at the beginning begin to ossify becoming more difficult to change; this influences the challenges that are experienced and the role that SBOMs play in overcoming these novel problems. Some of the new challenges that come up include: pipeline leaks, vulnerabilities in third-party packages, and runtime injection. All of which introduce significant risk. Understanding how SBOMs evolve across these stages helps organizations mitigate these risks effectively.

Whether you’re aiming to enhance your security posture, streamline compliance reporting, or improve incident response times, this comprehensive guide will equip you with the knowledge to leverage SBOMs effectively from Release to Production. Additionally, we’ll offer pro tips to help you maximize the benefits of SBOMs in your DevSecOps practices.

So, let’s continue our journey through the DevSecOps pipeline and discover how SBOMs can transform the latter stages of your software development lifecycle.

Learn the 5 best practices for container security and how SBOMs play a pivotal role in securing your software supply chain.

Download Now

Release (or Registry) => Analyzed SBOM

After development is completed and the new release of the software is declared a “golden” image the build system will push the release artifact to a registry for storage until it is deployed. At this stage, an SBOM that is generated based on these container images, binaries, etc. is named an “Analyzed SBOM” by CISA. The name is a little confusing since all SBOMs should be analyzed regardless of the stage they are generated. A more appropriate name might be a Release SBOM but we’ll stick with CISA’s name for now.

At first glance, it would seem that Analyzed SBOMs and the final Build SBOMs should be identical since it is the same software but that doesn’t hold up in practice. DevSecOps pipelines aren’t hermetically sealed systems, they can be “leaky”. You might be surprised what finds its way into this storage repository and eventually gets deployed bypassing your carefully constructed build and test setup.

On top of that, the registry holds more than just first-party applications that are built in-house. It also stores 3rd-party container images like operating systems and any other self-contained applications used by the organization.

The additional metadata that is collected for an Analyzed SBOM includes:

• Release images that bypass the happy path build and test pipeline
• 3rd-party container images, binaries and applications

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Comprehensive Artifact Inventory: A more holistic view of all software—both 1st- and 3rd-party—that is utilized in production.
• Enhanced Security and Compliance Posture: Catches vulnerabilities and non-compliant images for all software that will be deployed to production. This reduces the risk of security incidents and compliance violations.
• Third-Party Supply Chain Risk Management: Provides insights into the vulnerabilities and compliance status of third-party components.
• Ease of implementation: This stage is typically the lowest lift for implementation given that most SBOM generators can be deployed standalone and pointed at the registry to scan all images.

Cons:

• High Risk for Release Delays: Scanning images at this stage are akin to traditional waterfall-style development patterns. Most design decisions are baked-in and changes typically incur a steep penalty.
• Difficult to Push Feedback into Exist Workflow: The registry sits outside of typical developer workflows and creating a feedback loop that seamlessly reports issues without changing the developer’s process is a non-trivial amount of work.
• Complexity in Management: Managing SBOMs for both internally developed and third-party components adds complexity to the software supply chain.

Use-Cases

• Software Supply Chain Security: Organizations can detect vulnerabilities in both their internal developed software and external software to prevent supply chain injections from leading to a security incident.
• Compliance Reporting: Reporting on both 1st- and 3rd-party software is necessary for industries with strict regulatory requirements.
• Detection of Leaky Pipelines: Identifies release images that have bypassed the standard build and test pipeline, allowing teams to take corrective action.
• Third-Party Risk Analysis: Assesses the security and compliance of third-party container images, binaries, and applications before they are deployed.

Example: An organization subject to strict compliance standards like FedRAMP or cATO uses Analyzed SBOMs to verify that all artifacts in their registry, including third-party applications, comply with security policies and licensing requirements. This practice not only enhances their security posture but also streamlines the audit process.

Pro Tip

A registry is an easy and non-invasive way to test and evaluate potential SBOM generators. It won’t give you a full picture of what can be found in your DevSecOps pipeline but it will at least give you an initial idea of its efficacy and help you make the decision on whether to go through the effort of integrating it into your build pipeline where it will produce deeper insights.

Deploy => Deployed SBOM

As your container orchestrator is deploying an image from your registry into production it will also orchestrate any production dependencies such as sidecar containers or production dependencies. At this stage, an SBOM that is generated is named an “Deployed SBOM” by CISA.

The ideal scenario is that your operations team is storing all of these images in the same central registry as your engineering team but—as we’ve noted before—reality diverges from the ideal.

The additional metadata that is collected for a Deployed SBOM includes:

• Any additional sidecar containers or production dependencies that are injected or modified through a release controller.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Enhanced Security Posture: The final gate to prevent vulnerabilities from being deployed into production. This reduces the risk of security incidents and compliance violations.
• Leaky Pipeline Detection: Another location to increase visibility into the happy path of the DevSecOps pipeline being circumvented.
• Compliance Enforcement: Some compliance standards require a deployment breaking enforcement gate before any software is deployed to production. A container orchestrator release controller is the ideal location to implement this.

Cons:

Essentially the same issues that come up during the release phase.

• High Risk for Release Delays: Scanning images at this stage are even later than traditional waterfall-style development patterns and will incur a steep penalty if an issue is uncovered.
• Difficult to Push Feedback into Exist Workflow: A deployment release controller sits outside of typical developer workflows and creating a feedback loop that seamlessly reports issues without changing the developer’s process is a non-trivial amount of work.

Use-Cases

• Strict Software Supply Chain Security: Implementing a pipeline breaking gating mechanism is typically reserved for only the most critical security vulnerabilities (think: an actively exploitable known vulnerability).
• High-Stakes Compliance Enforcement: Industries like defense, financial services and critical infrastructure will require vendors to implement a deployment gate for specific risk scenarios beyond actively exploitable vulnerabilities.
• Compliance Audit Automation: Most regulatory compliance frameworks mandate audit artifacts at deploy time, these documents can be automatically generated and stored for future audits.

Example: A Deployed SBOM can be used as the source of truth for generating a report that demonstrates that no HIGH or CRITICAL vulnerabilities were deployed to production during an audit period.

Pro Tip

Combine a Deployed SBOM with a container vulnerability scanner that cross-checks all vulnerabilities against CISA’s Known Exploitable Vulnerability (KEV) database. In the scenario where a matching KEV is found for a software component you can configure your vulnerability scanner to return a FAIL response to your release controller to abort the deployment.

This strategy creates an ideal balance between not adding delays to software delivery and an extremely high probability for a security incident. 

Operate & Monitor (or Production) => Runtime SBOM

After your container orchestrator has deployed an application into your production environment it is live and serving customer traffic. An SBOM that is generated at this stage don’t have a name as specified by CISA. They are sometimes referred to as “Runtime SBOMs”. SBOMs are still a new-ish standard and will continue to evolve. 

The additional metadata that is collected for a Runtime SBOM includes:

• Modifications (i.e., intentional hotfixes or malicious malware injection) made to running applications in your production environment. 

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Continuous Security Monitoring: Identifies new vulnerabilities that emerge after deployment.
• Active Runtime Inventory: Provides a canonical view into an organization’s active software landscape.
• Low Lift Implementation: Deploying SBOM generation into a production environment typically only requires deploying the scanner as another container and giving it permission to access the rest of the production environment.

Cons:

• No Shift Left Security: By definition is excluded as a part of a shift left security posture.
• Potential for Release Rollbacks: Scanning images at this stage is the worst possible place for proactive remediation. Discovering a vulnerability could potentially cause a security incident and force a release rollback.

Use-Cases

• Rapid Incident Management: When new critical vulnerabilities are discovered and announced by the community the first priority for an organization is to determine exposure. An accurate production inventory, down to the component-level, is needed to answer this critical question.
• Threat Detection: Continuously monitoring for anomalous activity linked to specific components. Sealing your system off completely from advanced persistent threats (APTs) is an unfeasible goal. Instead, quick detection and rapid intervention is the scalable solution to limit the impact of these adversaries.
• Patch Management: As new releases of 3rd-party components and applications are released an inventory of impacted production assets provides helpful insights that can direct the prioritization of engineering efforts.

Example: When the XZ Utils vulnerability was announced in the spring of 2024, organizations that already automatically generated a Runtime SBOM inventory ran a simple search query against their SBOM database and knew within minutes—or even seconds—whether they were impacted.

Pro Tip

If you want to learn about how Google was able to go from an all-hands on deck security incident when the XZ Utils vulnerability was announced to an all clear under 10 minutes, watch our webinar with the lead of Google’s SBOM initiative.

Watch Now

Wrap-Up

As the SBOM standard has evolved the subject has grown considerably. What started as a structured way to store information about open source licenses has expanded to include numerous use-cases. A clear understanding of the evolution of SBOMs throughout the DevSecOps lifecycle is essential for organizations aiming to solve problems ranging from software supply chain security to regulatory compliance to legal risk management.

SBOMs are a powerful tool in the arsenal of modern software development. By recognizing their importance and integrating them thoughtfully across the DevSecOps lifecycle, you position your organization at the forefront of secure, efficient, and compliant software delivery.

Ready to secure your software supply chain and automate compliance tasks with SBOMs? Anchore is here to help. We offer SBOM management, vulnerability scanning and compliance automation enforcement solutions. If you still need some more information before looking at solutions, check out our webinar below on scaling a secure software supply chain with Kubernetes. 👇👇👇

Learn how Spectro Cloud secured their Kubernetes-based software supply chain and the pivotal role SBOMs played.

Watch Now

The software industry has wholeheartedly adopted the practice of building new software on the shoulders of the giants that came before them. To accomplish this developers construct a foundation of pre-built, 3rd-party components together then wrap custom 1st-party code around this structure to create novel applications. It is an extraordinarily innovative and productive practice but it also introduces challenges ranging from security vulnerabilities to compliance headaches to legal risk nightmares. Software bills of materials (SBOMs) have emerged to provide solutions for these wide ranging problems.

An SBOM provides a detailed inventory of all the components that make up an application at a point in time. However, it’s important to recognize that not all SBOMs are the same—even for the same piece of software! SBOMs evolve throughout the DevSecOps lifecycle; just as an application evolves from source code to a container image to a running application. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) has codified this idea by differentiating between all of the different types of SBOMs. Each type serves different purposes and captures information about an application through its evolutionary process.

In this 2-part blog series, we’ll deep dive into each stage of the DevSecOps process and the associated SBOM. Highlighting the differences, the benefits and disadvantages and the use-cases that each type of SBOM supports. Whether you’re just beginning your SBOM journey or looking to deepen your understanding of how SBOMs can be integrated into your DevSecOps practices, this comprehensive guide will provide valuable insights and advice from industry experts.

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

Download Now

Types of SBOMs and the DevSecOps Pipeline

Over the past decade the US government got serious about software supply chain security and began advocating for SBOMs as the standardized approach to the problem. As part of this initiative CISA created the Types of Software Bill of Material (SBOM) Documents white paper that codified the definitions of the different types of SBOMs and mapped them to each stage of the DevSecOps lifecycle. We will discuss each in turn but before we do, let’s anchor on some terminology to prevent confusion or misunderstanding.

Below is a diagram that lays out each stage of the DevSecOps lifecycle as well as the naming convention we will use going forward.

With that out of the way, let’s get started!

Plan => Design SBOM

As the DevSecOps paradigm has spread across the software industry, a notable best practice known as the security architecture review has become integral to the development process. This practice embodies the DevSecOps goal of integrating security into every phase of the software lifecycle, aligning perfectly with the concept of Shift-Left Security—addressing security considerations as early as possible.

At this stage, the SBOM documents the planned components of the application. The CISA refers to SBOMs generated during this phase as Design SBOMs. These SBOMs are preliminary and outline the intended components and dependencies before any code is written.

The metadata that is collected for a Design SBOM includes:

• Component Inventory: Identifying potential OSS libraries and frameworks to be used as well as the dependency relationship between the components.
• Licensing Information: Understanding the licenses associated with selected components to ensure compliance.
• Risk Assessment Data: Evaluating known vulnerabilities and security risks associated with each component.

This might sound like a lot of extra work but luckily if you’re already performing DevSecOps-style planning that incorporates a security and legal review—as is best practice—you’re already surfacing all of this information. The only thing that is different is that this preliminary data is formatted and stored in a standardized data structure, namely an SBOM.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Maximal Shift-Left Security: Vulnerabilities cannot be found any earlier in the software development process. Design time security decisions are the peak of a proactive security posture and preempt bad design decisions before they become ingrained into the codebase.
• Cost Efficiency: Resolving security issues at this stage is generally less expensive and less disruptive than during later stages of development or—worst of all—after deployment.
• Legal and Compliance Risk Mitigation: Ensures that all selected components meet necessary compliance standards, avoiding legal complications down the line.

Cons:

• Upfront Investment: Gathering detailed information on potential components and maintaining an SBOM at this stage requires a non-trivial commitment of time and effort.
• Incomplete Information: Projects are not static, they will adapt as unplanned challenges surface. A design SBOM likely won’t stay relevant for long.

Use-Cases

There are a number of use-cases that are enabled by 

• Security Policy Enforcement: Automatically checking proposed components against organizational security policies to prevent the inclusion of disallowed libraries or frameworks.
• License Compliance Verification: Ensuring that all components comply with the project’s licensing requirements, avoiding potential legal issues.
• Vendor and Third-Party Risk Management: Assessing the security posture of third-party components before they are integrated into the application.
• Enhance Transparency and Collaboration: A well-documented SBOM provides a clear record of the software’s components but more importantly that the project aligns with the goals of all of the stakeholders (engineering, security, legal, etc). This builds trust and creates a collaborative environment that increases the chances of each individual stakeholder outcome will be achieved.

Example:

A financial services company operating within a strict regulatory environment uses SBOMs during planning to ensure that all components comply with compliance standards like PCI DSS. By doing so, they prevent the incorporation of insecure components that won’t meet PCI compliance. This reduces the risk of the financial penalties associated with security breaches and regulatory non-compliance.

Pro Tip

If your organization is still early in the maturity of its SBOM initiative then we generally recommend moving the integration of design time SBOMs to the back of the queue. As we mention at the beginning of this the information stored in a design SBOMs is naturally surfaced during the DevSecOps process, as long as the information is being recorded and stored much of the value of a design SBOM will be captured in the artifact. This level of SBOM integration is best saved for later maturity stages when your organization is ready to begin exploring deeper levels of insights that have a higher risk-to-reward ratio. 

Alternatively, if your organization is having difficulty getting your teams to adopt a collaborative DevSecOps planning process mandating a SBOM as a requirement can act as a forcing function to catalyze a cultural shift.

Source => Source SBOM

During the development stage, engineers implement the selected 3rd-party components into the codebase. CISA refers to SBOMs generated during this phase as Source SBOMs. The SBOMs generated here capture the actual implemented components and additional information that is specific to the developer who is doing the work.

The additional metadata that is collected for a Source SBOM includes:

• Dependency Mapping: Documenting direct and transitive dependencies.
• Identity Metadata: Adding contributor and commit information.
• Developer Environment: Captures information about the development environment.

Unlike Design SBOMs which are typically done manually, these SBOMs can be generated programmatically with a software composition analysis (SCA) tool—like Syft. They are usually packaged as command line interfaces (CLIs) since this is the preferred interface for developers. 

If you’re looking for an SBOM generation tool (SCA embedded), we have a comprehensive list of options to make this decision easier.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Accurate and Timely Component Inventory: Reflects the actual components used in the codebase and tracks changes as codebase is actively being developed.
• Shift-Left Vulnerability Detection: Identifies vulnerabilities as components are integrated but requires commit level automation and feedback mechanisms to be effective.
• Facilitates Collaboration and Visibility: Keeps all stakeholders members informed about divergence from the original plan and provokes conversations as needed. This is also dependent on automation to record changes during development and the notification systems to broadcast the updates.

Example: A developer adds a new logging library to the project like an outdated version of Log4j. The SBOM, paired with a vulnerability scanner, immediately flags the Log4Shell vulnerability, prompting the engineer to update to a patched version.

Cons:

• Noise from Developer Toolchains: A lot of times developer environments are bespoke. This creates noise for security teams by recording development dependencies.
• Potential Overhead: Continuous updates to the SBOM can be resource-intensive when done manually; the only resource efficient method is by using an SBOM generation tool that automates the process.
• Possibility of Missing Early Risks: Issues not identified during planning may surface here, requiring code changes.

Use-Cases

• Faster Root Cause Analysis: During service incident retrospectives questions about where, when and by whom a specific component was introduced into an application. Source SBOMs are the programmatic record that can provide answers and decrease manual root cause analysis.
• Real-Time Security Alerts: Immediate notification of vulnerabilities upon adding new components, decreasing time to remediation and keeping security teams informed.
• Automated Compliance Checks: Ensuring added components comply with security or license policies to manage compliance risk.
• Effortless Collaboration: Stakeholders can subscribe to a live feed of changes and immediately know when implementation diverges from the plan.

Pro Tip

Some SBOM generators allow developers to specify development dependencies that should be ignored, similar to .gitignore file. This can help cut down on the noise created by unique developer setups.

Build & Test => Build SBOM

When a developer pushes a commit to the CI/CD build system an automated process initiates that converts the application source code into an artifact that can then be deployed. CISA refers to SBOMs generated during this phase as Build SBOMs. These SBOMs capture both source code dependencies and build tooling dependencies.

The additional metadata that is collected includes:

• Build Dependencies: Build tooling such as the language compilers, testing frameworks, package managers, etc.
• Binary Analysis Data: Metadata for compiled binaries that don’t utilize traditional container formats.
• Configuration Parameters: Details on build configuration files that might impact security or compliance.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Build Infrastructure Analysis: Captures build-specific components which may have their own vulnerability or compliance issues.
• Reuses Existing Automation Tooling: Enables programmatic security and compliance scanning as well as policy enforcement without introducing any additional build tooling.
• Reuses Existing Automation Tooling: Directly integrates with developer workflow. Engineers receive security, compliance, etc. feedback without the need to reference a new tool.
• Reproducibility: Facilitates reproducing builds for debugging and auditing.

Cons:

• SBOM Sprawl: Build processes run frequently, if it is generating an SBOM with each run you will find yourself with a glut of files that you will have to manage.
• Delayed Detection: Vulnerabilities or non-compliance issues found at this stage may require rework.

Use-Cases

• SBOM Drift Detection: By comparing SBOMs from two or more stages, unexpected dependency injection can be detected. This might take the form of a benign, leaky build pipeline that requires manual workarounds or a malicious actor attempting to covertly introduce malware. Either way this provides actionable and valuable information.
• Policy Enforcement: Enables the creation of build breaking gates to enforce security or compliance. For high-stakes operating environments like defense, financial services or critical infrastructure, automating security and compliance at the expense of some developer friction is a net-positive strategy.
• Automated Compliance Artifacts: Compliance requires proof in the form of reports and artifacts. Re-utilizing existing build tooling automation to automate this task significantly reduces the manual work required by security teams to meet compliance requirements.

Example: A security scan during testing uses the Build SBOM to identify a critical vulnerability and alerts the responsible engineer. The remediation process is initiated and a patch is applied before deployment.

Pro Tip

If your organization is just beginning their SBOM journey, this is the recommended phase of the DevSecOps lifecycle to implement SBOMs first. The two primary cons of this phase can be mitigated the easiest. For SBOM sprawl, you can procure a turnkey SBOM management solution like Anchore SBOM. 

As for the delay in feedback created by waiting till the build phase, if your team is utilizing DevOps best practices and breaking features up into smaller components that fit into 2-week sprints then this tight scoping will limit the impact of any significant vulnerabilities or non-compliance discovered.

Intermission

So far we’ve covered the first half of the DevSecOps lifecycle. Next week we will publish the second part of this blog series where we’ll cover the remainder of the pipeline. Watch our socials to be sure you get notified when part 2 is published.

If you’re looking for some additional reading in the meantime, check out our container security white paper below.

Learn the 5 best practices for container security and how SBOMs play a pivotal role in securing your software supply chain.

Download Now

We are thrilled to announce the release of Anchore Enterprise 5.10, our tenth release of 2024. This update brings two major enhancements that will elevate your experience and bolster your security posture: the new Anchore Data Service (ADS) and expanded AnchoreCTL ecosystem coverage. 

With ADS, we’ve built a fast and reliable solution that reduces time spent by DevSecOps teams debugging intermittent network issues from flaky services that are vital to software supply chain security.

On top of that, we have buffed our software composition analysis (SCA) scanner’s ecosystem coverage (e.g., C++, Swift, Elixir, R, etc.) for all Anchore customers. To do this we embedded Syft—our popular, open source SCA/SBOM (software bill of materials) generator—directly into Anchore Enterprise.

It’s been a fall of big releases at Anchore and we’re excited to continue delivering value to our loyal customers. Read on to get all of the gory details >>

Announcing the Anchore Data Service

Before, customers ran the Anchore Feed Service within their environment to pull data feeds into their Anchore Enterprise deployment. To get an idea of what this looked like, see the architecture diagram of Anchore Enterprise prior to version 5.10:

Originally we did this to give customers more control over their environment. Unfortunately this wasn’t without its issues. The data feeds are provided by the community which means the services were designed to be accessible but cost-efficient. This meant they were unreliable; frequently having accessibility issues.

We only have to stretch our memory back to the spring to recall an example that made national headlines. The National Vulnerability Database (NVD) ran into funding issues. This impacted both the creation of new vulnerabilities AND the availability of their API. This created significant friction for Anchore customers—not to mention the entirety of the software industry.

Now, Anchore is running its own enterprise-grade service, named Anchore Data Service (ADS). It is a replacement for the former feed service. ADS aggregates all of the community data feeds, enriches the data (with proprietary threat data) and packages it for customers; all of this with a service availability guarantee expected of an enterprise service.

The new architecture with ADS as the intermediary is illustrated below:

As a bonus for our customers running air-gapped deployments of Anchore Enterprise, there is no more need to run a second deployment of Anchore Enterprise in a DMZ to pull down the data feeds. Instead a single file is pulled from ADS then transferred to a USB thumb drive. From there a single CLI command is run to update your air-gapped deployment of Anchore Enterprise.

Increased AnchoreCTL Ecosystem Coverage

We have increased the number of supported ecosystems (e.g., C++, Swift, Elixir, R, etc.) in Anchore Enterprise. This improves coverage and increases the likelihood that all of your organization’s applications can be scanned and protected by Anchore Enterprise.

More importantly, we have completely re-architected the process for how Anchore Enterprise supports new ecosystems. By integrating Syft—Anchore’s open source SBOM generation tool—directly into AnchoreCTL, Anchore’s customers will now get access to new ecosystem support as they are merged into Syft’s codebase.

Before Syft and AnchoreCTL were somewhat separate which caused AnchoreCTL’s support for new ecosystems to lag Syft’s. Now, they are fully integrated. This enables all of Anchore’s enterprise and public sector customers to take full advantage of the open source community’s development velocity.

Full list of support ecosystems

Below is a complete list of all supported ecosystems by both Syft and AnchoreCTL (as of Anchore Enterprise 5.10; see our docs for most current info):

After you update to Anchore Enterprise 5.10, the SBOM inventory will now display all of the new ecosystems. Any SBOMs that have been generated for a particular ecosystem will show up top. The screenshot below gives you an idea of what this will look like:

Wrap-Up

Anchore Enterprise 5.10 marks a new chapter in providing reliable, enterprise-ready security tooling for modern software development. The introduction of the Anchore Data Service ensures that you have consistent and dependable access to critical vulnerability and exploit data, while the expanded ecosystem support means that no part of your tech stack is left unscrutinized for latent risk. Upgrade to the latest version and experience these new features for yourself.

To update and leverage these new features check out our docs, reach out to your Customer Success Engineer or contact our support team. Your feedback is invaluable to us, and we look forward to continuing to support your organization’s security needs.We are offering all of our product updates as a new quarterly product update webinar series. Watch the fall webinar update in the player below to get all of the juicy tidbits from our product team.