-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Add proposal for threat modeling/attack analysis - NEW - OSPS-DO-18 #121
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
added proposal for Threat modeling, attack surface analysis, and/or data-flow analysis as part of process & docs Signed-off-by: CRob <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 on providing specific examples of how to locate the threat model. I think it's fine to grow more examples over time, but leaving this a blank slate makes it hard for tools and project owners to converge on a small set of solutions rather than balls of markdown.
Co-authored-by: Puerco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: CRob <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Evan Anderson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: CRob <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: David A. Wheeler <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: CRob <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: David A. Wheeler <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: CRob <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: David A. Wheeler <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: CRob <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm thinking this could be clarified further, but having specific examples is a step forward.
I'm wavering on whether or not this should be level 2 or level 3. I can see an argument for level 3. However, a simple basic threat modeling analysis isn't that hard, especially since we don't specify the level of depth. So I'm just saying "yes" here.
As much as I'm usually a proponent of threat models, I'm not a fan of the complexity here. Definitely not for level 2. We don't want to hold small project teams to an overly rigorous standard, and even the simplest threat model processes can become very cumbersome. In contrast, the self-assessments we've discussed previously could accomplish most of our goals without the added rigor of a threat model. The process we've been following already seems to cover 2/3 of the goals here:
|
I agree with Eddie. I still think we have something like a risk profile missing here. For example I can see us requiring this for Level 2 if Low Risk projects are excluded until Level 3 or something like that. |
We will create a new category for "Security Assessments" and move this there. This will be OSPS-SA-02. |
added proposal for Threat modeling, attack surface analysis, and/or data-flow analysis as part of process & docs