You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would seem the threat intelligence system and the configuration policy management system would directly query the repository. Can you elaborate on the management component to clarify this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is a good question, and one of the differences between the SCAPv2 architecture and what we've also been working on in IETF SACM. So far, the SCAPv2 community working on this architecture has put the Manager (essentially a posture assessment orchestrator) between any application relying on the and the repository itself.
I think it's probably a good idea to revisit this within the group.
That said, we do have a desire to rely on data for a certain period, and also to recognize when data is no longer reliable (i.e. it's lost its freshness). If we support direct repository interactions, then either the requester would need to handle what to do about stale information (i.e. interact with the Manager to gain fresh information), or the Repository would need to do that on behalf of the requester (i.e. the Repository would interact with the Manager to gain fresh information).
I am unclear on the manager component listed in the latest diagrams https://github.com/opencybersecurityalliance/documentation/blob/dee00b859dd2d1255fa22c05a0817420f6902518/Architecture%20Documents/SACM-container.pdf
It would seem the threat intelligence system and the configuration policy management system would directly query the repository. Can you elaborate on the management component to clarify this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: