Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should this be Unsupported either for SBOM? #20346

Open
zyyw opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Should this be Unsupported either for SBOM? #20346

zyyw opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@zyyw
Copy link
Contributor

zyyw commented Apr 23, 2024

How can we help you?
Screenshot 2024-04-23 at 6 23 48 PM

@xuelichao
Copy link
Contributor

xuelichao commented Apr 25, 2024

The identify status is different due to the SBOM implementation is not same as Vulnerability.

  1. Vulnerability:
    Display 'Not supported' when artifact.addition_links[ADDITIONS.VULNERABILITIES] is not found
    This implementation is there before i touch the codes, i do not modify the logic for vulnerability.

  2. SBOM: There is not addition_links for SBOM.(confirmed with Stone before last GA)
    Display 'Not supported' when project.scanner.capabilities.support_sbom is false

    Leave your Comments once there is any updates on this.

stonezdj added a commit to stonezdj/harbor that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2024
  fixes goharbor#20346

Signed-off-by: stonezdj <stone.zhang@broadcom.com>
stonezdj added a commit to stonezdj/harbor that referenced this issue May 5, 2024
  fixes goharbor#20346

Signed-off-by: stonezdj <stone.zhang@broadcom.com>
stonezdj added a commit to stonezdj/harbor that referenced this issue May 6, 2024
  fixes goharbor#20346

Signed-off-by: stonezdj <stone.zhang@broadcom.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants