🐧 Linux TippsDebian 11 Long Term Support reaches end-of-life(31.08.2026 um 02:00 Uhr)
🐧 Linux TippsUpdated Debian 13: 13.7 released(12.09.2026 um 02:00 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8741-1: Flatpak vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 10:44 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8742-1: Netty vulnerability(10.09.2026 um 11:01 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8737-2: GNU C Library vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 13:25 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8743-1: PHP vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 13:48 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8744-1: Python vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 15:53 Uhr)
🐧 Linux TippsUSN-8748-1: Linux kernel (NVIDIA) vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 17:32 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8745-1: KissFFT vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 17:36 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8746-1: libEBML vulnerability(10.09.2026 um 17:48 Uhr)
🐧 Linux TippsDebian 11 Long Term Support reaches end-of-life(31.08.2026 um 02:00 Uhr)
🐧 Linux TippsUpdated Debian 13: 13.7 released(12.09.2026 um 02:00 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8741-1: Flatpak vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 10:44 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8742-1: Netty vulnerability(10.09.2026 um 11:01 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8737-2: GNU C Library vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 13:25 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8743-1: PHP vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 13:48 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8744-1: Python vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 15:53 Uhr)
🐧 Linux TippsUSN-8748-1: Linux kernel (NVIDIA) vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 17:32 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8745-1: KissFFT vulnerabilities(10.09.2026 um 17:36 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenUSN-8746-1: libEBML vulnerability(10.09.2026 um 17:48 Uhr)

📰 IT Security Nachrichten 🕛 vor 4 Jahren 8 Min Lesezeit SECURITY-FEED
0

How to SLSA Part 1 - The Basics

↗ Quelle (security.googleblog.com)
🗣️ Stimme:

One of the great benefits of SLSA (, and hopes it can achieve SLSA 4 (pending the result of an independent audit). They’re also willing to qualify other build services as needed. Oppy on the other hand, doesn’t need to support arbitrary build services. They plan to have everyone use their Autobuilder network which they hope to qualify at SLSA 4 (they’ll conduct the audit/certification themselves). Finally, Acme plans to use Google Cloud Build which they’ll self-certify at SLSA 4 (pending the result of a Google-conducted audit).

Squirrel, Oppy, and Acme will follow a similar qualification process for the source control systems they plan to support.

Verification options

Full verification

At some point, one or more of the organizations will need to do full verification of each artifact to determine if it is acceptable for a given use case. This is accomplished by checking if the artifact meets the appropriate policy.

Typically, full verification would take place with , and perhaps other specialized attestations (like when they perform full verification.

When to verify

Verification (full or delegated) could happen at a number of different times.

On import to repo

Squirrel plans to perform full verification when an artifact is published to their repo. This will ensure that packages in the repo have met their corresponding policy. It’s also helpful because all the required data can be gathered when latency isn’t critical.

If this were the only time verification is performed, it would put the repository's storage in the trusted computing base (TCB) of its users. Squirrel’s plans to use delegated verification (and issue VSAs) can prevent this. The signature on the VSA will prevent the artifacts from being tampered with while sitting in storage, even if they’re just SLSA 0. Downstream users will just need to verify the VSA.

Acme also wants to do some sort of verification on the import to their internal repo since it simplifies their security story. They’re not quite sure what this will look like yet.

On install

Acme also wants to do verification when an artifact is actually installed since it can remove a number of intermediaries from their TCB (their repo, the network, upstream storage systems).

If they perform full verification at install then they must gather all the required information. That could be a lot of data, but it might be simplified by gathering the data from external sources and caching it in their internal repo. A larger problem is that it requires Acme to have established trust in all parties that produced that information (e.g. every builder of every package). For a complex supply chain that may be difficult.

If Acme performs delegated verification, they only need the VSA for the packages being installed and to explicitly trust a handful of parties. This allows the complex full verification to be performed once while allowing all users of that package to perform a much simpler operation.

Given these tradeoffs Acme prefers delegated verification at install time. Squirrel also really likes the idea and plans to build install time verification directly into the Squirrel tool.

On use

Verification could also take place each time an artifact is actually used. In this model, latency and reliability are very important (a sudden increase in site traffic may necessitate a scaling operation launching many new jobs).

Time of use verification allows the most context with which decisions can be made (“is this job allowed to run this code and is it free from vulns right now?”). It also allows policy changes to affect already built & installed software (which may or may not be desirable).

Acme wants their users to be able to verify on use without too many dependencies so they plan to provide VSAs users can use to perform delegated verification when they start the container (perhaps using something like

Such an artifact would likely not be accepted at higher SLSA levels, but the provenance can be used to: 1) prevent tampering with the artifact after it’s been imported and 2) be a data point for future analysis (e.g. should we prioritize asking for foo.tgz to be distributed with native SLSA provenance?).

Acme might be interested in taking this approach at some point, but they don’t need it at the moment.

Next time

In our next post we’ll cover specific approaches that can be used to answer questions like “where should attestations and policies be stored?” and “how do I trust the attestations that I receive?”


Vollständiger Original-Bericht
Ausführliche Details, Code-Beispiele & Hersteller-Stellungnahme auf security.googleblog.com.
↗ Original-Artikel auf security.googleblog.com lesen
Wie bewertest du diesen Beitrag?
1 Klick Feedback
Teilen mit Netzwerk & Team:
Community Threat-Level Barometer
Live Votum

Wie stufst du das Risiko dieser Schwachstelle / Bedrohung für dein Unternehmen ein?

Noch keine Stimmen — schätze das Risiko als Erster ein.

Community-Analysen & Experten-Meinungen 0

Verfasse deine eigene Analyse, teile Workarounds oder diskutiere diesen Vorfall im Blog.
Noch keine Community-Analyse verfasst. Markiere einen Textabschnitt oder klicke oben auf Eigene Analyse verfassen“!
Community Pulse: Relevanz-Einschätzung
1 Klick Experten-Votum
🔴 Akute Relevanz 0%
🟡 In Evaluierung 0%
🟢 Keine Auswirkung 0%
Spannende Innovation 0%
Verwandte Story-Cluster & Quellen (Vektor-KI)
Port 8095 Engine
1 Quelle
Debian 11 Long Term Support reaches end-of-life
1 Quelle
Updated Debian 13: 13.7 released
1 Quelle
USN-8741-1: Flatpak vulnerabilities
Ähnliche Beiträge
🔍 Verwandte News

Auch interessante Nachrichten How to SLSA Part 1 - The Basics

Thematisch verwandte Begriffe: SLSA, Part, Basics · 6 Treffer

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...