RFC: cargo-sbom

[arlosi]

This RFC adds an option to Cargo that emits a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) alongside compiled artifacts. Similar to how Cargo emits split debug info or "dep-info" (.d) files, this change emits an SBOM in a Cargo-specific format alongside outputs in the target directory. External tooling or Cargo subcommands can consume this Cargo SBOM file and transform it into other SBOM formats such as SPDX or CycloneDX.

Originally posted on internals as a pre-RFC, now moved to an RFC.

Rendered

[epage]

Do we need the checksum? For third-party SBOM formats, I would instead encourage them to own the checksum generation and worry people will reuse this and put their own expectations on what this means

[Alexei-Barnes]

Checksum is an optional field, since only crates from registries have checksums. If a checksum is needed for a crate that comes from a path dependency for example, it will be up to the post-processing tool to produce an appropriate value.

This text makes me wonder if "Checksum" is trying to capture version information for dependencies taken from a repository. Maybe "Checksum" and "Version" could be merged, so "Version" is the git sha when using git as your source for a crate?

[alilleybrinker]

I think the challenge with replacing "version" entirely with "checksum" is that a RUSTC_WORKSPACE_WRAPPER might want to consume the version information to do their own logic, so it's not just useful for validation purposes (which is what the checksum provides).

[Nemo157]

For the git case the sha is already part of the source, an example from cargo metadata after cargo add futures --git=https://github.com/rust-lang/futures-rs:

  "name": "futures",
  "version": "0.4.0-alpha.0",
  "id": "futures 0.4.0-alpha.0 (git+https://github.com/rust-lang/futures-rs#f9f8e690504529c2813caadabd85506756f8dc67)",
  "source": "git+https://github.com/rust-lang/futures-rs#f9f8e690504529c2813caadabd85506756f8dc67",

[epage]

How do we uniquely identify one of several crates / build units within a package?

The main situations for this

• Top-level build unit is a bin and it needs to depend on its lib
• A bin or lib that needs to depend on its build script

[epage]

Is any other config relevant to include?

[epage]

Or should we defer out all config to a future possibility so long as we make sure the format can support it?

[epage]

Should we include env variables (I assume rustc reports to us what it read for us to fingerprint) or file paths (again, I assume rustc tells us what it read to fingerprint)?

[Nilstrieb]

rustc mentions all read env vars in depinfo. This does not include env vars read by proc macros through std::env::var.
Depinfo also contains the read files, but as far as I'm aware, the standard library sources aren't included yet (-Zbinary-dep-depinfo enables that).

[epage]

Note this can also be moved to a future possibility so long as we ensure the format can support this.

[epage]

We should call out that its not just SBOM format but also being compliant with internal and external regulations.

[epage]

Not seeing what text resolved this so unresolving it

[Nemo157]

Do these details need to be written to the sbom, or could they just be queried from cargo metadata based on the Id as is proposed for other information like the license?

[Nemo157]

Actually, there is one detail here that is not available from cargo metadata: the checksum. (But as has been mentioned elsewhere, this checksum may not be that useful, instead tools may want to be following the manifest_path from the metadata and generating their own source file hash from that).

[epage]

What should we actually call this?

And is this a build param or a profile param?

[arlosi]

I thought a build parameter made most sense, since there's 1 place to easily control it.

• A CI environment wants to collect SBOM information on all binaries produced, so it sets CARGO_BUILD_SBOM=true
• A Cargo subcommand wants to enable SBOM generation when re-invoking Cargo, so it sets the flag.

If we use profiles, then it becomes harder for tooling wrapping Cargo to unconditionally enable it for the current run.

[epage]

Profile does not preclude environment variables because the manifest profile is layered with the config profile.

$ CARGO_PROFILE_DEV_OPT_LEVEL=10 cargo check
    Checking utf8parse v0.2.1
    Checking anstyle-query v1.0.0
    Checking colorchoice v1.0.0
    Checking anstyle v1.0.2
    Checking strsim v0.10.0
    Checking clap_lex v0.6.0 (/home/epage/src/personal/clap/clap_lex)
error: optimization level needs to be between 0-3, s or z (instead was `10`)

error: could not compile `anstyle-query` (lib) due to previous error
warning: build failed, waiting for other jobs to finish...
error: could not compile `clap_lex` (lib) due to previous error
error: could not compile `strsim` (lib) due to previous error
error: could not compile `utf8parse` (lib) due to previous error
error: could not compile `anstyle` (lib) due to previous error
error: could not compile `colorchoice` (lib) due to previous error

But it looks like the layering is all-or-nothing so setting one value might be ignored or cause other values to be ignored. That might be too disruptive.

[epage]

We should capture this reasoning within the RFC's rationale section

[joshtriplett]

👍 for having this in a profile, because I very much expect people will want to have this in some profiles and not in others.

[weihanglo]

Profile for now is a set of compiler settings. I am not sure if we want to expand the meaning of it to include SBOM. Also given SBOM is only meaningful to final artifacts, if we put it in profiles we need to document profile.debug.sbom not working for dependencies. We already have some confusions for lto and abort (rust-lang/cargo#9330).

If people want to switch build configurations, should we work on stabilizing config-include instead?

[the8472]

If we aim to participate in such schemes does that impose any new burdens on the project. E.g. would be inaccurate reports be considered a critical issue because it could possibly let security issues go undetected?

Would, if individual EU countries implement directives on a national level which use more expansive wording that imposes additional requirements that cargo does not fulfill, that become a priority because we committed to providing "useful" SBOMs?

[epage]

Would, if individual EU countries implement directives on a national level which use more expansive wording that imposes additional requirements that cargo does not fulfill, that become a priority because we committed to providing "useful" SBOMs?

As-is, we aren't providing the final SBOM artifact but information that can feed into it. This intentionally leaves a lot of that information to the caller to get.

I expect the mix of end user and regulatory requirements to contradict (they already were in the Pre-RFC thread) which is why I'd want stricken from the RFC a future possibility of providing a final SBOM. We likely can't keep up, we likely can't maintain the compatibility requirements, and we likely can't satisfy them without knobs for everything.

If we aim to participate in such schemes does that impose any new burdens on the project. E.g. would be inaccurate reports be considered a critical issue because it could possibly let security issues go undetected?

The fun of "fit for use".

We'll be providing a report of what information we have. There is more information, like from build scripts linking external libraries, that we can't provide. The usefulness of any of this is dependent on all parties involved cooperating.

That said, for what we do provide, if there is a bug, does it need a CVE? Unsure? I'd personally just consult the security folks when it happens. This is less about direct attacks and more about the quality of monitoring.

I do wonder if this would be useful as a more general unit-graph report (which it isn't far from). For example, watch tools could use this information to know what changes to watch for for future builds. That might ease some of the pressure on this.

[the8472]

The fun of "fit for use".

That said, for what we do provide, if there is a bug, does it need a CVE? Unsure? I'd personally just consult the security folks when it happens. This is less about direct attacks and more about the quality of monitoring.

I think it would be good to clarify in advance how much we're promising here. I suspect that down the road some large institutional users will start relying heavily on SBOMs and make noises when it's not working as they want it to.

[alilleybrinker]

Since the SBOM precursor file will be written first, is there an intention to remove it if the production of the artifact, including perhaps the execution of any RUSTC_WORKSPACE_WRAPPER, fails?

[arlosi]

I don't have a strong opinion on this. Do you think it needs to be specified in the RFC?

[alilleybrinker]

I think the challenge with replacing "version" entirely with "checksum" is that a RUSTC_WORKSPACE_WRAPPER might want to consume the version information to do their own logic, so it's not just useful for validation purposes (which is what the checksum provides).

[daniel-pfeiffer]

I am wondering what this is worth at all. If there is the slightest chance to fake this, it's less meaningful. E.g. build.rs calls cargo differently and writes the file itself. Or a test alters it, after cargo build finishes. Detectable by code review, of course. But if downstream trusts the SBOM, that might take time to be discovered.

Say there's an exploitable dependency and it takes a newer version to fix that. But an artifact wants to provide that exploitability while pretending not to have it. Easy, if it fakes the SBOM to declare the newer version, while Cargo.toml uses the older one.

OTOH, if I am wrong, and SBOM were ok: Features matter! The used crates can be vulnerable or not, depending on which features are activated.

[wangkirin]

The NTIA released Minimum Elements for a SBOM. Currently， mainstream SBOM formats (e.g SPDX, CycloneDX, SWID ) are all extend from this minimum elements and add some optional fields.
May be we can also set the format align with the NITA minimum elements, like add author field

[the8472]

RFC 3052 intentionally made the author field optional.

Any SBOM initiative that can't cope with anonymously/pseudonymously authored code is overreach imo. The code can be perfectly viable. And it doesn't change the fact that authors can vanish or give false contact information anyway.

[Nemo157]

As is mentioned below this section, you can query other metadata by looking up the dependency in cargo metadata based on the id, if the crate has published author metadata it will be available there.

[wangkirin]

RFC 3052 intentionally made the author field optional.

Any SBOM initiative that can't cope with anonymously/pseudonymously authored code is overreach imo. The code can be perfectly viable. And it doesn't change the fact that authors can vanish or give false contact information anyway.

I know what you mean. Maybe we're talking about two dimensions, and you're right from a security point of view. Simply from the point of view of this being a tool, providing the author field may be a better way for developers to use this tool to generate SBOM. :)

[epage]

I am wondering what this is worth at all. If there is the slightest chance to fake this, it's less meaningful. E.g. build.rs calls cargo differently and writes the file itself. Or a test alters it, after cargo build finishes. Detectable by code review, of course. But if downstream trusts the SBOM, that might take time to be discovered.

Say there's an exploitable dependency and it takes a newer version to fix that. But an artifact wants to provide that exploitability while pretending not to have it. Easy, if it fakes the SBOM to declare the newer version, while Cargo.toml uses the older one.

OTOH, if I am wrong, and SBOM were ok: Features matter! The used crates can be vulnerable or not, depending on which features are activated.

At some point, you have to trust something. You also have to deal with the chain of trust after this file is written.

For tests, I at least assume people are most likely to read this file in dedicated "production build" jobs which, in my experience, do not run tests.

For build.rs, this file is written at least after all are run from your dependencies. I'm not too sure if it will be written before your own build.rs but, if you can't trust that, then you can't trust people working with the file after its written.

[daniel-pfeiffer]

For build.rs, this file is written at least after all are run from your dependencies. I'm not too sure if it will be written before your own build.rs but, if you can't trust that, then you can't trust people working with the file after its written.

The question is, whether this is only for validating one’s own artifacts’ dependencies by the like of Blackduck. Then it might be helpful by giving developers and maintainers a vulnerabilities overview. Which still leaves room for “the enemy within” attacks.

Or is it to accompany binaries on the internet, to prove something about them? How could it?

Either way, a chain of proof is hard to establish. If the SBOM production doesn’t have hard guarantees, it’s the weak link…

[epage]

If what you are looking for is a guarantee that a generated dependency list is the one generated for the binary, from inception to your system, then this is not that feature. #2801 isn't even that feature (atm).

[arlosi]

I am wondering what this is worth at all. If there is the slightest chance to fake this, it's less meaningful. E.g. build.rs calls cargo differently and writes the file itself. Or a test alters it, after cargo build finishes. Detectable by code review, of course. But if downstream trusts the SBOM, that might take time to be discovered.

This RFC is intended to expose accurate dependency information for other tools to consume. It's not intended to guard against malicious crates or build scripts. SBOMs are only part of the solution to software supply chain security.

[Fishrock123]

Is the premise here that cargo metadata or similar does not give enough information for this to be implemented fully as a crate (such as for cargo-bom)? Or that it should be maintained by the rust project itself?

It just seems like something that should be an installable cargo command (like cargo install cargo-sbom which would give cargo-sbom).

[epage]

Is the premise here that cargo metadata or similar does not give enough information for this to be implemented fully as a crate (such as for cargo-bom)? Or that it should be maintained by the rust project itself?

It just seems like something that should be an installable cargo command (like cargo install cargo-sbom which would give cargo-sbom).

I feel like this is covered in Alternatives, particularly:

Unfortunately it's difficult to extract accurate SBOM information with existing options. Using the Cargo.lock file or cargo metadata overincludes dependencies. Additionally, since Cargo has many different commands that produce compiled artifacts (build, test, bench, etc.) and each of these commands take arguments that can affect the dependency list it's difficult to ensure that the correct dependency list is used.

This is basically a dump of cargo's unit graph at the end of the build so other people can build their own tools on top of this. There is no other way to get information like this at this time.

This also opens the door for build.rs to inject data so information about non-Rust dependencies can be included. There is currently no mechanism for other tools to collect side channel information from build.rs.

[alilleybrinker]

I think some of the questions around possible adversarial manipulation of SBOM data are basically asking for a threat model. Do we expect packages to be malicious, do we do anything to protect against malicious action by them? It's probably worth writing down explicitly in the RFC (I'm interested in helping if help is desired), at least so there's clarity.

[teor2345]

I think some of the questions around possible adversarial manipulation of SBOM data are basically asking for a threat model. Do we expect packages to be malicious, do we do anything to protect against malicious action by them? It's probably worth writing down explicitly in the RFC (I'm interested in helping if help is desired), at least so there's clarity.

We could start with something like:

Cargo's SBOM provides an accurate report of the components and dependencies used by cargo to build a software artefact. These components and dependencies are trusted to:

• report transitive dependencies accurately,
• report components they use accurately, and
• accurately modify the SBOM precursor written by cargo, or preserve it without modification.

cargo does not defend against malicious components or dependencies changing the SBOM, or accidentally or maliciously concealing themselves from the SBOM. In particular, cargo may not include components or dependencies added by build scripts or external tools. Ideally, tools should provide their own SBOMs, and build scripts should modify the SBOM via supported cargo interfaces.

[nop0x0f]

In the Pre-RFC I saw this referred to as an "SBOM fragment". Would using that language help with some of the worries and confusion between regulatory SBOM, existing SBOM formats, and SBOM data that is easiest to access from Cargo?

[epage]

Does this mean the config needs to support specifying the format version so people can opt-in to the new version or leave that as a future possibility? Do we tie this to the default (when its true) to the edition?

[Shnatsel]

This gets a hearty 👍 from me as the author of cargo auditable and the current maintainer of cargo cyclonedx.

Nearly everything needed for these tools to work in a precise and robust manner is covered, and it would resolve long-standing issues in both tools. Off the top of my head, this would resolve:

• Cargo Resolver V2 (different feature sets for build and runtime dependencies) is not supported rust-secure-code/cargo-auditable#38
• Features are always resolved at workspace level rust-secure-code/cargo-auditable#66
• Can't build recent gitoxide versions rust-secure-code/cargo-auditable#124
• cargo metadata tries to collect dev dependencies rust-secure-code/cargo-auditable#128
• Capture data only available during the build process CycloneDX/cyclonedx-rust-cargo#532

All of which are impractical or infeasible to fix without this RFC.

My only concern is that the RFC doesn't describe a mechanism for the SBOM file to be discovered by RUSTC_WORKSPACE_WRAPPER. If cargo auditable were made to consume these SBOMs, it would require some way to discover the SBOM file.

An environment variable with a path to the SBOM set by cargo when it executes RUSTC_WORKSPACE_WRAPPER would be ideal.

[weihanglo]

I might suggest changing the name SBOM. The current text is a bit misleading, for example “enable SBOM generation”. Though, I don't have a better name in mind :(

[weihanglo]

Profile for now is a set of compiler settings. I am not sure if we want to expand the meaning of it to include SBOM. Also given SBOM is only meaningful to final artifacts, if we put it in profiles we need to document profile.debug.sbom not working for dependencies. We already have some confusions for lto and abort (rust-lang/cargo#9330).

If people want to switch build configurations, should we work on stabilizing config-include instead?