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

Fixed redundant option for Mission Impact #187

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 16, 2022

Conversation

fruehaufm
Copy link
Contributor

According to the documentation on https://github.com/CERTCC/SSVC/blob/main/doc/md_src_files/055_decision-points_2.md#mission-impact "none" and "degraded" are actually just one option called "None/ Non-Essential Degraded".

According to the documentation on https://github.com/CERTCC/SSVC/blob/main/doc/md_src_files/055_decision-points_2.md#mission-impact "none" and "degraded" are actually just one option called "None/ Non-Essential Degraded".
@sei-vsarvepalli
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Michael @fruehaufm

We left this as duplicate on purpose, there may be cases where this can be made granular differentiated. Eventually these may collapse like you suggested. I understand it may be confusing at this time. Perhaps we can update the documents to indicate this? Let me know if that will help.

Thanks
Vijay

@fruehaufm
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @sei-vsarvepalli
Thanks for your reply!
I see. If this duplicate is left on purpose, you just need to update the documentation and the description of the decision points. Right now I think it's a bit unclearly described.

Thanks
Michael

@sei-vsarvepalli sei-vsarvepalli added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label May 31, 2022
@sei-vsarvepalli sei-vsarvepalli requested a review from j--- May 31, 2022 17:18
@j---
Copy link
Collaborator

j--- commented Jun 27, 2022

I think one move I'd like to make overall is to move away from saying "none" because that can be interpreted as categorically deny there is any impact whatsoever. This is probably never strictly true. Or at least, if the vul does not exist in the organization's infrastructure at all, that should just be a pre-filter on the vul should not be considered. If the intent is to capture the vul may be present and you don't know for sure it is not, then "none" is not appropriate, anyway.
So I think I'm OK with saying "degraded or less" in the documentation for degraded. If that's what we agree to, then we should remove "none" from the list of options, not "degraded".

If that's what we agree, there should be one Pull removing "none" from the schema and also updating the documentation to make that clear.

@fruehaufm
Copy link
Contributor Author

That sounds plausible to me.

@j---
Copy link
Collaborator

j--- commented Jun 30, 2022

That sounds plausible to me.

OK, great. Do you want to edit your pull to reflect that?

@fruehaufm
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just edited it and removed "none" instead of "degraded".

fruehaufm added a commit to fruehaufm/SSVC that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2022
Copy link
Collaborator

@j--- j--- left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this covers everything.

@j--- j--- requested a review from sei-vsarvepalli July 7, 2022 08:19
Copy link
Contributor

@sei-vsarvepalli sei-vsarvepalli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All checks out correct. There seems to be no issue with this PR, approved to merge.

@sei-vsarvepalli sei-vsarvepalli merged commit 64725c1 into CERTCC:main Aug 16, 2022
@ahouseholder ahouseholder added this to the SSVC v2.1 milestone Jul 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants