Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SPDX version 2.3 support #537

Open
neo42man opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 9 comments
Open

SPDX version 2.3 support #537

neo42man opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 9 comments
Labels
tabled We like this idea, but we are not going to action on it in the moment

Comments

@neo42man
Copy link

neo42man commented Apr 4, 2024

According to the documentation and output files, the format of the SPDX document is in version 2.2 ("spdxVersion": "SPDX-2.2")

However, according to the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), SPDX documents must be version 2.3 or higher to meet the requirements.
Source: BSI-TR-03183-2.pdf

Are there any plans to update the sbom-tool to output version 2.3 documents?

@jlperkins jlperkins added needs triage Default status upon issue submission tabled We like this idea, but we are not going to action on it in the moment and removed needs triage Default status upon issue submission labels Apr 4, 2024
@jlperkins
Copy link
Contributor

We are eagerly anticipating the release of the SPDX 3.0 spec (may be soon! 😉).

@riteshnoronha
Copy link

In SPDX 2.3, new features include optional fields for Primary Package Purpose, support for additional hashing algorithms (SHA3-256, SHA3-384, SHA3-512, BLAKE2b-256, BLAKE2b-384, BLAKE2b-512, BLAKE3, ADLER32), new relationship types (REQUIREMENT_DESCRIPTION_FOR and SPECIFICATION_FOR), package fields for ValidUntilDate, and expanded external repository identifiers in Security (introducing advisory, fix, URL, and SWID categories).

Note that most fields remain optional, and compliance with SPDX 2.3 doesn't require mandatory use of new fields, making SPDX 2.3 documents backward compatible with SPDX 2.2.

For BSI compliance, the following fields are more of a challenge:

  1. Packages Creator: (Package Supplier) (email or url is required)
  2. Package Dependencies: (Relationships) Direct dependencies
  3. Package Vuln Ids: cpe or purl(inaccuracies)

@0xabdi
Copy link

0xabdi commented May 13, 2024

Any idea when support for spdx 2.3 will be added to the tool?

@henning-krause
Copy link

Hmm.. the Version 3 of spdx was released: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0/.

@wglenos
Copy link

wglenos commented May 13, 2024

Also interested in finding out about sbom-tool support for spdx 2.3 output if anybody can provide any details or ETA (if any)

I realize the 3.0 spec is also out however spdx 2.3 output is what we are currently looking to use at the moment - thanks for any info

@henning-krause
Copy link

@jlperkins Bumping this since there was no activity on this for a while. The new SPDX version was released. Any idea when the new version will be available in the SBOM tool?

@sfoslund sfoslund added the needs triage Default status upon issue submission label Aug 6, 2024
@sfoslund
Copy link
Member

sfoslund commented Aug 8, 2024

We are still actively working on the tool but these updates have been pushed back such that we no longer have a ETA

@sfoslund sfoslund removed the needs triage Default status upon issue submission label Aug 8, 2024
@bact
Copy link
Contributor

bact commented Oct 7, 2024

@bobmartin3000 fyi

@bact
Copy link
Contributor

bact commented Oct 7, 2024

  • From Version 2.0.0 of the BSI TR-03183 Part 2 guideline which is just released few weeks ago (2024-09-20), the minimum required SPDX version is now 2.2.1 (was SPDX 2.3 in TR-03183 Part 2 V1.1).
  • So if TR-03183 support is the only concerns, supporting SPDX 2.2.1 may be enough for the job. (SPDX 2.2 and SPDX 2.2.1 have no technical difference, so may be it can be faster to get the support)
  • See Support German BSI TR-03183 2.0.0 by supporting SPDX 2.2.1 or higher #738

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
tabled We like this idea, but we are not going to action on it in the moment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants