Replies: 1 comment
|
From the QWG call today; if we want to validate on the timestamp field we should formalize the appropriate timestamp format. There's an RFD for that here #475 |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Purpose:
This will be one of multiple discussions to query the QWG and others on how best to use the upcoming CVE Services Validation Library for performing additional or more accurate CVE Record Format JSON schema validation during record ingest. The Validation Library will allow the CVE Program to perform programmatic validations beyond what the current JSON schema validation can provide. A simple example might be where we want to validate that a provided CWE ID actually exists by referencing the current CWE List. This is not possible using JSON schema validation, but would be possible with the Validation Library.
Discussion:
The providerMetadata is a required object within the current CVE Record Format JSON schema. The providerMetadata has three properties: orgId, shortName, and dateUpdated. Only the orgId is required during CNA submission of a CVE Record, shortName and dateUpdated are optional. The current CVE Services implementation will overwrite all of these properties upon submission using the correct values based on the CNA that is submitting the CVE Record/CNA container. Even though these properties are overwritten, we may still want to define the validation for viewing/output purposes.
Schema Location(s):
https://github.com/CVEProject/cve-schema/blob/main/schema/CVE_Record_Format.json#L505
Question(s):
Examples:
All reactions