Allow CNAs to embed data into their CNA listing

[EvansJonathan]

Proposer: Kurt Seifried

GOAL:
CHANGE: Should we also allow projects/etc. to simply embed the data into their CNA listing, especially if it is "simple" (e.g. an Open Source project with a single software project, or a project with multiple projects that are well defined (e.g. within their GitHub organization) where they cover "everything" for example
OUTCOME:

[EvansJonathan]

I am not entirely sure what "data" this is talking about.

[kurtseifried]

so DWF CNA's have a definition file, e.g. Kubernetes:

https://github.com/distributedweaknessfiling/DWF-CNA-Registry/blob/master/CNA-Registry/000000/cna-4.json

And third parties that cover more:

https://github.com/distributedweaknessfiling/DWF-CNA-Registry/blob/master/CNA-Registry/000000/cna-6.json

[dadinolfi]

I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. Right now, we keep a public listing of CNA scopes here:

http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html#cna_coverage

When you say "CNA Listing", what are you referring to? Already, Root CNAs are required to maintain a public list of their Sub-CNAs and their scopes and make that available to the Primary CNA, per 3.2.2.1. (What you are doing with the DWF satisfies that requirement.)

What more did you have in mind?

[chandanbn]

FIRST SIG on vulnerability coordination is working on standardizing vendor contact information, mainly as a set of standard key value pairs expressed in YAML or JSON, for eg.,

vendor: vendor name
also-known-as: !!set { alias1, alias2, alias3 } 
email:  !!set { email1, email2, email3 }
max-response-time: business hours/days
PGP: PGP key
advisory-location: 
disclosure-policy-URL: 
escalation-path: alternate contact
updated: 
...

The aim is to help security researchers or vendors to find correct contacts, set expectations about what is in scope and what is not etc., The same format be used here by CNAs to provide information about themselves. Think of this as digital business cards for vendors or CNAs.

[dadinolfi]

Making use of the FIRST SIG's work seems ideal. I would prefer to not explicitly include a reference to their work yet unless it is finalized. But I want to make use of existing standards instead of inventing another one just for us.

From a CNA Rules standpoint, would we need to make a change to make use of this standard, for example, or would it just be the standard used by the Primary, recommended to the Roots, and required for the Sub-CNAs if their Root (or the Primary if they don't have a Root) uses it?

@dadinolfi assuming the SIG requirements/standard works for us then I would have no problem adopting it for the DWF hierarchy of CNAs. Can someone provide a link to the actual standard/docs (does that exist yet?)