Tag: Vulnerability Management

ModuleQ reduces vulnerability management time by 80% with Anchore Secure

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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.

Download Now

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.

Save your developers time with Anchore Enterprise. Get instant access with a 15-day free trial.

START FREE TRIAL

The Evolution of SBOMs in the DevSecOps Lifecycle: Part 2

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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 Evolution of SBOMs in the DevSecOps Lifecycle: From Planning to Production

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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

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

Choosing the Right SBOM Generator: A Framework for Success

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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.

Download Now
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.

Save your developers time with Anchore Enterprise. Get instant access with a 15-day free trial.

START FREE TRIAL

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

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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.

Save a Seat
STIG 101 Webinar: Insights for Compliance and Cyber Readiness

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.

Download Now

Introducing Anchore Data Service and Anchore Enterprise 5.10

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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):

  • Alpine (apk)
  • C (conan)
  • C++ (conan)
  • Dart (pubs)
  • Debian (dpkg)
  • Dotnet (deps.json)
  • Objective-C (cocoapods)
  • Elixir (mix)
  • Erlang (rebar3)
  • Go (go.mod, Go binaries)
  • Haskell (cabal, stack)
  • Java (jar, ear, war, par, sar, nar, native-image)
  • JavaScript (npm, yarn)
  • Jenkins Plugins (jpi, hpi)
  • Linux kernel archives (vmlinuz)
  • Linux kernel a (ko)
  • Nix (outputs in /nix/store)
  • PHP (composer)
  • Python (wheel, egg, poetry, requirements.txt)
  • Red Hat (rpm)
  • Ruby (gem)
  • Rust (cargo.lock)
  • Swift (cocoapods, swift-package-manager)
  • WordPress plugins

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.

Save your developers time with Anchore Enterprise. Get instant access with a 15-day free trial.

START FREE TRIAL

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

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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.

Save a Seat
STIG 101 Webinar: Insights for Compliance and Cyber Readiness

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.

Download Now

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

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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👇

Download Now

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

Posted on by Jono Bergquist

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.

Download Now
DreamFactory achieves 75% time savings through automated vulnerability management & transparent security with Anchore Enterprise.

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.

Download Now
DevSecOps for a DoD Software Factory: 6 Best Practices for Container Images White Paper by Anchore