“State of the Tooling” in Open Source Automation

1. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
“State of the Tooling”
in Open Source Automation
OpenChain German work group
Philippe Ombredanne, AboutCode.org nexB Inc.

2. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Philippe Ombredanne
► Project lead and maintainer for VulnerableCode, ScanCode and AboutCode
► Creator of Package URL, co-founder of SPDX & ClearlyDefined
► FOSS veteran, long time Google Summer of Code mentor
► Co-founder and CTO of nexB Inc., makers of DejaCode
► Weird facts and claims to fame
● Signed off on the largest deletion of lines of code in the Linux kernel
(but these were only comments)
● Unrepentant code hoarder. Had 60,000+ GH forks
now down only to 20K forks
► pombredanne@nexb.com irc:pombreda

3. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Why open source compliance tooling?
▷ Because open source for open source: This is the way!
● Dogfooding
▷ Free as in beer and freedom of course
● Code of course, but do not forget the data!
▷ Key to enable right-sized automation for your open chain
▷ Best-in-class tools in several areas

4. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Key trends (1) Time to retool?
▷ 3rd wave of Compliance tooling creation and adoption underway
● 1st wave was commercial
● 2nd wave was centered on license compliance and legal
● 3rd wave will be centered on developers and appsec
■ Eventually balanced and holistic FOSS solutions
▷ TODO: Review your existing approach and retool

5. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Key trends (2)
▷ Security is top of mind
● SBOMs are everywhere, but for what? Few can process them
▷ And license compliance is not yet solved
● Still a lot of work left for automation
● Emerging scripting platforms to capture your pipelines
■ Orchestrate many tools
▷ Open data and data sharing will happen
● Everybody wants it, but also everyone wants to control it
● Centralized or decentralized?

6. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Key trends (3)
▷ Software health, quality, sustainability are not yet on the radar
▷ FOSS GUI/Web apps are still badly missing
▷ Slowly the analysis of builds and binaries will displace source-only
scans
▷ Dependency tracking is not yet solved at scale

7. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Key trends (4) Best tools are FOSS
▷ The leading tools are mostly FOSS first
● License detection
● Container analysis
● Package detection
● Dependency tracking and resolution
▷ But BEWARE
● Lots of tools are shallow and look only skin deep
■ Barely suitable for serious license or security work
● Do your homework and try the tools: they are open after all

8. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
▷ Vulnerability and package databases are the new rush
● Open or commercial vulnerability databases with supposedly
"premium" content
● But BEWARE of the data quality. Size DOES NOT matter.
■ Made up packages, made up versions
■ Not worth their price: Compare and include open solutions!
▷ Every commercial tool now includes license data
● License data derived from package manifest is NOT ENOUGH
● Built-in policies are impractical: is GPL always bad??
Key trends (5) Poor data quality

9. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
PURL is emerging as the glue to avoid lock-in!
● Started to support package ids in ScanCode and VulnerableCode, now everywhere
○ CycloneDX
○ SPDX including just released GitHub SPDX SBOMs features
○ Google OSV
○ Sonatype OSSIndex
○ New PurlDB, MatchCode
○ Most FOSS tools such as ORT, Fosslight, DependencyTrack, Anchore, Tern and
most of the open (and prioprietary) SCA and Infosec/Appsec tools
● Coming to the NVD in version 5.1!!
● Key vector for interop: if two tools speak PURL, integration is made easier
● Demand its adoption by your vendors and projects
Key trends (6) PURL is the essential glue

10. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Key insights (1): Share the data!
"I would like to have automation to avoid repeat work when re-running tools"
"Let's avoid re-running scans, share them and reuse them instead"
● Everyone wants to share and reuse data from scans, and origin and license data
○ Speed up origin and license review
○ Avoid redoing the scans and the same review either inside my org or across orgs
● But "It is hard to overcome lawyers’ objections to sharing data such as license conclusions
and curations"
● And how to trust the scans and curations? And deal with different policies and
standards for conclusions and curations? (specifically about licensing)
● What is the motivation and ease for public data sharing?

11. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Key insights (2): Open the data!
● Open data (e.g., as in free and open licensed data on FOSS) are emerging
○ The too big to share argument will not hold
● Eventually open, community curated FOSS package "knowledge bases" will become
the norm and supplant proprietary, closed source alternatives
● We should share raw scanners/tools outputs first
● We should fix upstream licensing issues, upstream
● The centralized approach does not work well
○ Too big to share
○ Out of date
○ Lack of trust in centralized control

12. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
License and Vulnerability are like oil and vinegar
● Even if core process is code origin determination, constituents are not the same (yet)
○ License folks care less about Vulnerabilities
○ Security folks care less about Licenses
● FOSS projects that cater to both should provide differentiated documentation for
each audience
● Some core tools are the same, but users are different
● Expect a convergence of the two aspects in the future
● Until then, advice to OSPOs:
○ Handle both domains
○ But adapt your language to each constituent/persona
Key insights (3) Licensing != Security?

13. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Multiple FOSS projects try to solve license compatibility
● FLICT, OSADL, Hermine Oniro
● Automating license conflicts/compatibility checks is a real problem at scale
● Projects may work together and eventually some conventions will emerge
● Key domains
○ Help legal understand/zoom in on key license concerns
○ What is the effect of multiple licenses?
○ How to surface license compatibility issues
● Effective/resulting license inference and compatibility is a policy issue
○ But tooling can automate the grunt work
Key insights (4) License Compatibility

14. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
● Does copying a snippet of code really matter?
○ Have you looked at the big rocks first? e.g., whole libraries
○ Are you ready to pay the price in time and/or cash?
Image credits: https://www.integrativenutrition.com/
Key insights (5) Snippets and matching?

15. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
● Domain has been abandoned by commercial vendors
○ Snyk has spun off FOSSID
○ Synopsys mostly abandoned Protex
● One new entrant with open source code but proprietary data: SCANOSS
● Snippets may not matter (too much)
● But AI/ML-generated code snippets anyone?
○ Will Artificial general intelligence (AGI) make snippets both more relevant and
useless at the same time when everyone can generate the same boilerplate
derived from everyone's code
● Yet code matching can speed up the analysis when done right (find big rocks first)
○ Reuse previous analysis based on matching code: WIP with MatchCode
Key insights (5) Snippets and matching?

16. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
● SBOMs are everywhere
○ GitHub can even create these directly from a repo
○ But what about data quality (depth and breadth)?
○ But what about using proper machine readable identifiers (license, PURL)?
● Hi-Fi or Lo-Fi SBOMs?
● Every tool creates SBOMs but then what?
○ 2 out of 50+ folks were effectively consuming SBOMs
● Big gaps in tool-to-tool integration
● Too much over engineering, and under-specification
● Advice: Ignore the SPDX vs. CycloneDX feud and embrace both, with PURL
○ Feel free to ignore SWID
○ SBOM is just a reporting format
Key insights (6) SBOM, mehBOM?

17. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
● Collaborate: License conflict/compatibility checking FOSS projects on data
and standards (FLIct/OSADl/Hermie)
● Create: A live inventory of all FOSS tools and their capabilities
● Share: Approaches to dependency detection/resolution/processing
● Define: Evolve a standard/schema for tool-to-tool technical scan data sharing
● DATA: Exchange data!
Follow up on collaboration opportunities?

18. Copyright © nexB Inc. License: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Credits
▷ Presentation template by SlidesCarnival licensed under CC-BY-4.0
▷ Photograph by Unsplash licensed under Unsplash License
▷ Other content licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0
18