SLSA uses provenance to indicate whether an artifact is authentic or not, but provenance doesn’t do anything unless somebody inspects it. SLSA calls that inspection verification, and this page describes how to verify artifacts and their SLSA provenance. The intended audience is system implementers, security engineers, and software consumers.
Artifact verification is a process that consists of several stages that involves the artifact distribution system (“package ecosystem”) and artifact consumer.
Package ecosystems verify an artifact’s provenance against a set of expectations. Those expectations are set by the package ecosystem, with optional input from the artifact producer. Package ecosystems may choose to distribute only artifacts that pass verification, or they may choose to require that consumers opt-in to verification.
Consumers can trust their package ecosystem or some other third party to verify artifacts, or they can verify artifacts against their own set of expectations.
⚠ RFC: Is there a better term that is more obvious to most readers?
A package ecosystem is a set of conventions and tooling for package distribution. Every package has an ecosystem, whether it is formal or ad-hoc. Some ecosystems are formal, such as language distribution (e.g. Python/PyPA), operating system distribution (e.g. Debian/Apt), or artifact distribution (e.g. OCI). Other ecosystems are informal, such as a convention used within a company. Even ad-hoc distribution of software, such as through a link on a website, is considered an “ecosystem”. For more background, see Package Model.
The package ecosystem’s maintainers are responsible for reliably redistributing artifacts and provenance, making the producers’ expectations available to consumers, and providing tools to enable safe artifact consumption (e.g. whether an artifact meets its producer’s expectations).
Expectations are known provenance values that indicate the corresponding
artifact is authentic. For example, a producer can define the allowed values for
for a given package (assuming it uses the SLSA provenance format) in order to address
the build integrity threats.
TODO: link to more concrete guidance once it’s available.
Expectations MUST be sufficient to detect or prevent this adversary from injecting unofficial behavior into the package. Example threats in this category include building from an unofficial fork or abusing a build parameter to modify the build. Usually expectations identify the canonical source repository (which is the main external parameter) and any other security-relevant external parameters.
It is important to note that expectations are tied to a package name, whereas provenance is tied to an artifact. Different versions of the same package name may have different artifacts and therefore different provenance. Similarly, an artifact may have different names in different package ecosystems but use the same provenance file.
using the RECOMMENDED suite of attestation
formats SHOULD list the package name in the provenance attestation statement’s
subject field, though the precise semantics for binding a package name to an
artifact are defined by the package ecosystem.
The package ecosystem MUST ensure that expectations are defined for the package before it is made available to package ecosystem users.
There are several approaches a package ecosystem could take to setting expectations, for example:
The package ecosystem MUST ensure that any changes to expectations are authorized by the package’s producer. This is to prevent a malicious actor from updating the expectations to allow building and publishing from a fork under the malicious actor’s control. Some ways this could be achieved include:
Verifying expectations for artifacts
It is a critical responsibility of the package ecosystem to verify that the provenance for a package matches the expectations defined for that package. In our threat model, the adversary has the ability to invoke a build and to publish to the registry but not to write to the source repository, nor do they have insider access to any trusted systems.
A package version is considered to meet a given SLSA level if and only if the package ecosystem has verified its provenance against the package’s expectations. If expectations are defined for a package but no provenance exists for the artifact, this MUST result in verification failure. Conversely, if multiple provenance attestations exist, the system SHOULD accept any combination that satisfies expectations.
Verifying expectations could happen in multiple places within a package ecosystem, for example by using one or more of the following approaches:
- During package upload, the registry ensures that the package’s provenance matches the known expectations for that package before accepting it into the registry.
- During client-side installation/deployment of a package, the package ecosystem client ensures that the package’s provenance matches the known expectations for that package before use.
- Package ecosystem participants and/or the ecosystem operators perform continuous monitoring of packages to detect any changes to packages which do not match the known expectations. TODO: do we need to emphasize that the value of monitoring without enforcement is lower?
All package ecosystem verifiers will require a mapping from builder identity to the SLSA level the builder is trusted to meet. How this map is defined, distributed, and updated is package ecosystem specific.
TODO: expand on this map model. Provide examples for ecosystems to follow, perhaps in the use-cases, and link to certification.
Verification MUST include the following steps:
- Ensuring that the builder identity is one of those in the map of trusted builder id’s to SLSA level.
- Verification of the provenance metadata.
- Ensuring that the values for
ExternalParametersin the provenance match the known expectations. The package ecosystem MAY allow an approved list of
ExternalParametersto be ignored during verification. Any unrecognized
ExternalParametersSHOULD cause verification to fail.
NOTE: The term package ecosystem MAY be interpreted loosely. For example, one could implement a system which is external to the canonical package ecosystem and perform SLSA verification for that package ecosystem’s contents. This combination can be considered a package ecosystem for the purposes of setting and verifying expectations.
TODO: Update the requirements to provide guidelines for how to implement, showing what the options are:
- Create a more concrete guide on how to do expectations
- Whether provenance is generated during the initial build and/or after-the-fact using reproducible builds
- How provenance is distributed
- What happens on failure: blocking, warning, and/or asynchronous notification
The package ecosystems MUST distribute provenance for the artifacts they distribute if provided by the producer.
A package’s consumer is the organization or individual that uses the package.
There are no requirements for how artifact consumers interact with SLSA, but they will benefit from verifying an artifact’s provenance and the build system used to produce the artifact. If a consumer is unwilling or unable to verify artifacts, they may still gain some benefit by relying on third-party verification (e.g. a monitoring service that publicizes artifacts that violate their expectations).
The consumer may have to opt-in to enable SLSA verification, depending on the package ecosystem.
Consumers may either audit the build systems themselves using the prompts in verifying systems or rely on the SLSA certification program (coming soon).