[COMMUNITY] Produce an EO 14028 secure-software self-attestation (per OMB M-22-18 / M-23-16) and an accompanying Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) conforming to NTIA Minimum Elements in CycloneDX or SPDX format.
[COMMUNITY] Produce an EO 14028 secure-software self-attestation (per OMB M-22-18 / M-23-16) and an accompanying Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) conforming to NTIA Minimum Elements in CycloneDX or SPDX format.
⚠️ Community-contributed command — not part of the officially-maintained ArcKit baseline.
Output should be reviewed by qualified US federal counsel, your agency's Senior Agency Official
for Privacy (SAOP), CISO, Chief AI Officer (CAIO), and (for FedRAMP matters) the agency PMO
and 3PAO before reliance.
Statutory currency: EO 14110 was revoked January 2025; the active AI assurance mandates
are OMB M-24-10 (use of AI) and OMB M-25-21 (acquisition of AI). FedRAMP completed the
transition to NIST 800-53 Rev 5 baselines in 2024 — Rev 4 references are deprecated. Verify
all citations against the current Federal Register, OMB Circulars page, NIST publications, and
FedRAMP.gov before relying on this output.
You are an enterprise architect producing a software producer secure-software self-attestation under EO 14028 and OMB M-22-18 / M-23-16, with an accompanying Software Bill of Materials (SBOM).
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Context
Executive Order 14028 ("Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity", May 2021) directs federal civilian agencies to require secure-software practices from their software suppliers. OMB M-22-18 (September 2022) operationalised this by directing agencies to obtain self-attestations from software producers conforming to the NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF, SP 800-218). OMB M-23-16 (June 2023) extended the deadlines and pointed to the CISA Secure Software Development Attestation Form as the standard self-attestation instrument; CISA began accepting attestations via its Repository for Software Attestations and Artifacts.
Alongside the attestation, agencies may require an SBOM conforming to the NTIA Minimum Elements (July 2021): a machine-readable inventory of the software components shipped, with relationships and provenance. The two predominant SBOM formats are CycloneDX (OWASP) and SPDX (Linux Foundation, ISO/IEC 5962). Provenance attestations (in-toto, SLSA level claim, Sigstore signatures) increasingly accompany the SBOM.
Use scripts/bash/create-project.sh --json --name "<project-name>" if the project does not yet exist; otherwise locate it.
Use node scripts/generate-document-id.mjs <PROJECT_ID> SBOM --filename for the artefact filename. The type code for this command is SBOM.
Resolve the <!-- DOC-CONTROL-HEADER --> marker per RENDERING.md before writing the artefact. RENDERING.md hard-routes the US regime to _partials/document-control-us.md, which already carries the EO 13526 / 32 CFR Part 2002 marking ladder — no per-command classification override is needed.
Generate the following sections:
Software Product Identification — producer name, product name, version, release date, deployment targets, whether the product is delivered as software, SaaS, IaaS/PaaS-hosted application, or hybrid.
Applicability Determination — does M-22-18 apply? Cite the M-22-18 §2 definition of covered software (software developed after 14 September 2022 used by the federal government). Note any open-source components and the producer-of-record for each.
CISA Self-Attestation Form Content — populate the CISA attestation form fields per OMB M-22-18 §III: (1) the software is developed and built in secure environments per SSDF PO.5; (2) the producer has documented audit trails / provenance for internal code and third-party components per PS.3, PW.4; (3) the producer employs automated tools to maintain trusted source-code supply chains per PW.4, PW.7, PW.8; (4) the producer maintains provenance for internal code and third-party components consumed; and additional sub-items per the current CISA form. Each item: status (Yes / No / Partial), evidence references, remediation plan.
Handoffs
The attestation and SBOM directly evidence NIST 800-53 SR and SA family controls in $arckit-us-nist-800-53. SBOM-format choice, signing strategy, and any exception requests should be captured as ADRs via $arckit-adr. Components with known unmitigated vulnerabilities and any open M-22-18 exceptions feed $arckit-risk.
Important Notes
The attestation is from the software producer, not the agency — if the agency is procuring software, the supplier signs the CISA form. If the agency is producing software (in-house development or as a federal CSO), the agency is the producer and signs the form itself. Identify the producer-of-record before drafting.
CycloneDX vs SPDX is not interchangeable per-asset — pick one format per software product and maintain it consistently across versions. Switching formats mid-lifecycle complicates downstream consumer tooling.
The NTIA Minimum Elements are a floor, not a ceiling — modern SBOM consumers expect dependency-graph completeness, license metadata, VEX integration, and signed provenance. Treat the NTIA list as the minimum, then exceed it.
SLSA level claims must be verifiable — claiming SLSA Level 3 or 4 without the corresponding build-pipeline isolation, hermetic builds, and signed provenance is non-compliant. If you cannot evidence the level, claim one lower.
M-22-18 exceptions are time-bound — exception requests must specify the period, compensating measures, and remediation plan. Treat the exception as a clock running down, not as a permanent carve-out.
Suggested Next Steps
After completing this command, consider running:
$arckit-us-nist-800-53 -- SR (Supply Chain Risk Management) and SA (System and Services Acquisition) control family implementations must cross-reference the attestation and SBOM.
$arckit-adr -- SBOM format choice (CycloneDX vs SPDX), signing strategy (Sigstore, in-toto, SLSA level), and attestation exception requests warrant ADRs.
$arckit-risk -- Components with known unmitigated vulnerabilities or attestation exceptions feed the risk register.
SSDF Practice Crosswalk — table mapping each CISA attestation item to SP 800-218 practices (PO, PS, PW, RV) and to NIST 800-53 SR / SA family controls.
SBOM Format Choice — CycloneDX or SPDX, with rationale. Note the version (e.g. CycloneDX 1.6, SPDX 2.3) and the tooling used to generate the SBOM.
NTIA Minimum Elements Checklist — for the SBOM artefact confirm presence of: Supplier name; Component name; Version of the component; Other unique identifiers (PURL, CPE); Dependency relationships; Author of SBOM data; Timestamp; plus the data fields, automation support (machine-readable), and practice elements (frequency, depth, known unknowns, distribution and delivery, access control, accommodation of mistakes).
Provenance and Signing — SLSA level claim (1 / 2 / 3 / 4) with rationale, signing strategy (Sigstore cosign, GPG, vendor key), in-toto attestation layout if used.
Exception Request — if a self-attestation cannot be made for one or more items, document the M-22-18 exception process: which items, why, compensating controls, agency CIO + OMB notification status, expiry of the exception.
Distribution Plan — where the attestation will be lodged (CISA Repository for Software Attestations and Artifacts), where the SBOM will be distributed (agency CSO portal, supplier portal), and the access-control posture for SBOM consumers.
Before writing the file, read .arckit/references/quality-checklist.md and verify all Common Checks plus the SBOM per-type checks pass. Fix any failures before proceeding.
Use the Write tool to save the artefact at the path returned by create-project.sh + generate-document-id.mjs.
Emit a short summary to the user — attestation status (Full / Partial / Exception), SBOM format and component count, SLSA level claim, open exceptions, and the lodging date target. Do not echo the full artefact.
