Appendix e
Appendix E: Sample Policies and Templates¶
This appendix provides customizable policy templates and frameworks for managing software supply chain security. Each template includes placeholder text in [BRACKETS] that should be replaced with organization-specific information. Guidance notes in italics provide context for customization.
Open Source Consumption Policy Template¶
Use this template to establish organizational standards for evaluating, approving, and managing open source software dependencies. Customize thresholds, approval workflows, and exceptions based on your organization's risk tolerance and regulatory requirements.
[ORGANIZATION NAME] Open Source Software Consumption Policy¶
Document Control
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Version | [VERSION NUMBER] |
| Effective Date | [DATE] |
| Owner | [ROLE/DEPARTMENT] |
| Review Frequency | [ANNUAL/SEMI-ANNUAL] |
| Classification | [INTERNAL/CONFIDENTIAL] |
1. Purpose
This policy establishes requirements for the secure evaluation, approval, and ongoing management of open source software (OSS) components used within [ORGANIZATION NAME] products and systems. The policy aims to minimize security, legal, and operational risks while enabling developers to benefit from the open source ecosystem.
2. Scope
This policy applies to: - All software development activities conducted by [ORGANIZATION NAME] employees and contractors - All open source components incorporated into [ORGANIZATION NAME] products, services, and internal systems - All environments including development, testing, staging, and production
Customize scope to include or exclude specific business units, product lines, or environments as appropriate.
3. Definitions
- Open Source Software (OSS): Software distributed under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) or similar terms permitting use, modification, and redistribution.
- Direct Dependency: An OSS component explicitly declared in a project's dependency manifest.
- Transitive Dependency: An OSS component required by a direct dependency.
- Critical System: [DEFINE BASED ON YOUR CLASSIFICATION SCHEME]
4. Roles and Responsibilities
| Role | Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Developers | Evaluate components against criteria; request approvals; monitor for vulnerabilities |
| [SECURITY TEAM] | Review high-risk requests; maintain approved/prohibited lists; respond to vulnerabilities |
| [LEGAL TEAM] | Review license compliance; approve non-standard licenses |
| [ARCHITECTURE TEAM] | Approve architectural changes; maintain technology standards |
| Engineering Management | Ensure team compliance; allocate resources for remediation |
5. Component Evaluation Criteria
Before introducing a new open source component, developers must evaluate:
5.1 Security Assessment - [ ] No known critical or high-severity vulnerabilities (CVSS ≥ [7.0/8.0/9.0]) - [ ] Active maintenance: commits within last [6/12] months - [ ] Security policy (SECURITY.md) present - [ ] Vulnerability disclosure process documented - [ ] [MINIMUM OPENSSF SCORECARD SCORE, e.g., ≥5]
5.2 Legal Assessment - [ ] License identified and documented - [ ] License on approved list (see Appendix A) - [ ] No conflicting license obligations - [ ] Copyright notices preserved
5.3 Operational Assessment - [ ] Minimum [NUMBER] maintainers - [ ] [MINIMUM DOWNLOAD/USAGE THRESHOLD] - [ ] Documentation adequate for intended use - [ ] Compatible with existing technology stack
Adjust thresholds based on the criticality of the system where the component will be used. Consider tiered requirements for critical vs. non-critical systems.
6. Approval Workflow
| Risk Level | Criteria | Approval Required |
|---|---|---|
| Low | Meets all criteria; approved license; non-critical system | Self-approval with documentation |
| Medium | Minor criteria gaps OR critical system | [TEAM LEAD/SECURITY TEAM] approval |
| High | Known vulnerabilities OR license concerns OR unmaintained | [SECURITY TEAM + LEGAL] approval |
| Prohibited | On prohibited list OR critical unpatched vulnerabilities | Not permitted; no exceptions |
7. Approved and Prohibited Components
Maintain these lists in a central, version-controlled location. Reference them here.
- Approved component list: [LINK TO APPROVED LIST]
- Prohibited component list: [LINK TO PROHIBITED LIST]
- License approved list: [LINK TO LICENSE LIST]
8. Ongoing Management Requirements
8.1 Dependency Tracking - All projects must maintain accurate dependency manifests - Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) generated for all releases - SBOM format: [SPDX/CycloneDX]
8.2 Vulnerability Monitoring - All dependencies monitored via [TOOL NAME, e.g., Dependabot, Snyk] - Vulnerability remediation timelines:
| Severity | Remediation Timeline |
|---|---|
| Critical (CVSS 9.0-10.0) | [24-72 hours] |
| High (CVSS 7.0-8.9) | [7-14 days] |
| Medium (CVSS 4.0-6.9) | [30-60 days] |
| Low (CVSS 0.1-3.9) | [90 days or next release] |
8.3 Updates - Dependencies must be updated to address security vulnerabilities within timelines above - Non-security updates should be applied [MONTHLY/QUARTERLY] - End-of-life components must be replaced within [TIMEFRAME]
9. Exceptions
Exceptions to this policy require: - Written justification documenting business need - Risk assessment and mitigation plan - Approval from [APPROVING AUTHORITY] - Time-bound duration not exceeding [6/12 months] - Documented in [EXCEPTION TRACKING SYSTEM]
10. Compliance and Enforcement
- Compliance verified through [AUTOMATED SCANNING/AUDITS]
- Non-compliance reported to [MANAGEMENT LEVEL]
- Repeated violations may result in [CONSEQUENCES]
11. Related Documents
- [LINK TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT POLICY]
- [LINK TO INFORMATION SECURITY POLICY]
- [LINK TO VENDOR MANAGEMENT POLICY]
Dependency Vetting Checklist¶
Use this checklist when evaluating new open source dependencies. Complete all applicable sections and retain documentation for audit purposes.
Dependency Vetting Checklist¶
Component Information
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Component Name | |
| Version | |
| Package URL (purl) | |
| Repository URL | |
| Evaluator | |
| Date | |
| Target Project/System | |
| Criticality Level | [ ] Critical [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low |
Security Evaluation
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability Assessment | ||
| No critical vulnerabilities (CVSS ≥ 9.0) | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| No high vulnerabilities (CVSS 7.0-8.9) | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Known vulnerabilities have fixes available | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Security Practices | ||
| SECURITY.md or security policy present | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Private vulnerability reporting enabled | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Signed releases or commits | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Branch protection enabled | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| 2FA required for maintainers | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | ||
| Scorecard score ≥ [THRESHOLD] | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | Score: |
| No critical Scorecard failures | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A |
Maintenance and Health
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Last commit within [6/12] months | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | Date: |
| Active response to issues | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Multiple maintainers (bus factor > 1) | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | Count: |
| Release within last [12] months | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | Version: |
| Not deprecated or archived | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Backing organization (foundation/company) | [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A |
Legal and License
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| License clearly identified | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | License: |
| License on approved list | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| License compatible with intended use | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| No license conflicts with existing deps | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Copyright notices intact | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A |
Technical Suitability
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Adequate documentation | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Compatible with tech stack | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Reasonable dependency tree | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | Depth: |
| No unnecessary capabilities | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Alternatives evaluated | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A |
Supply Chain Assessment
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Published to official registry | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Download count reasonable | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | Count: |
| Not typosquatting similar name | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Build provenance available | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A | |
| Source matches distributed binary | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail [ ] N/A |
Decision
| Outcome | Selection |
|---|---|
| Recommendation | [ ] Approve [ ] Approve with conditions [ ] Reject |
| Conditions (if applicable) | |
| Risk Level | [ ] Low [ ] Medium [ ] High |
| Approval Required From | |
| Review Date |
Signatures
| Role | Name | Date | Signature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluator | |||
| Approver |
AI Coding Assistant Usage Policy¶
Use this template to establish guidelines for the secure use of AI coding assistants. This policy addresses risks including code quality, intellectual property, data leakage, and supply chain concerns from AI-generated suggestions.
[ORGANIZATION NAME] AI Coding Assistant Usage Policy¶
Document Control
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Version | [VERSION NUMBER] |
| Effective Date | [DATE] |
| Owner | [ROLE/DEPARTMENT] |
| Classification | [INTERNAL/CONFIDENTIAL] |
1. Purpose
This policy establishes requirements for the secure and responsible use of AI-powered coding assistants (including but not limited to GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, Cursor, and similar tools) within [ORGANIZATION NAME]. The policy aims to harness productivity benefits while managing security, quality, and intellectual property risks.
2. Scope
This policy applies to: - All employees and contractors performing software development - All AI coding assistants, whether cloud-hosted or locally deployed - Code generated for [ORGANIZATION NAME] products, services, and internal systems
3. Approved Tools
List tools approved for use. Specify any configuration requirements.
| Tool | Approved Use | Required Configuration |
|---|---|---|
| [TOOL 1] | [SCOPE] | [CONFIGURATION] |
| [TOOL 2] | [SCOPE] | [CONFIGURATION] |
Unapproved AI coding tools may not be used without explicit authorization from [APPROVING AUTHORITY].
4. Permitted Uses
AI coding assistants may be used for: - [ ] Generating boilerplate code and common patterns - [ ] Code completion and syntax assistance - [ ] Documentation generation - [ ] Test case generation - [ ] Code explanation and learning - [ ] Refactoring suggestions - [ ] [OTHER PERMITTED USES]
5. Prohibited Uses
AI coding assistants must NOT be used for: - [ ] Generating code that handles [CLASSIFIED/SENSITIVE DATA TYPES] - [ ] Security-critical functions including authentication, authorization, and cryptography without expert review - [ ] Inputting proprietary source code into non-enterprise AI tools - [ ] Inputting customer data, credentials, or secrets - [ ] Inputting non-public business information - [ ] Circumventing security controls or generating exploit code - [ ] [OTHER PROHIBITED USES]
6. Security Requirements
6.1 Data Protection - Enterprise/business tiers required; consumer tiers prohibited - Telemetry and training on company code must be disabled where configurable - Code snippets containing [SENSITIVE ELEMENTS] must not be submitted to AI tools
6.2 Code Review Requirements All AI-generated code must: - Be reviewed by a human developer before commit - Pass all standard code review requirements - Be scanned by static analysis tools - Not be committed with "AI-generated" as sole justification
6.3 Dependency Verification When AI assistants suggest dependencies: - Verify the package exists in official registries - Verify the package name is spelled correctly (prevent slopsquatting) - Evaluate dependencies per the Open Source Consumption Policy - Do not automatically accept dependency suggestions without verification
7. Quality Assurance
7.1 Developer Responsibilities Developers using AI coding assistants must: - Understand all code before committing—never commit code you don't understand - Verify correctness through testing - Check for security vulnerabilities in suggestions - Ensure suggestions don't introduce license conflicts - Remove any placeholder or example credentials
7.2 Known Limitations Developers should be aware that AI coding assistants may: - Generate code with security vulnerabilities - Suggest outdated or deprecated patterns - Hallucinate non-existent packages or APIs - Reproduce copyrighted code from training data - Generate functional but suboptimal code
8. Intellectual Property
8.1 Output Ownership - Code generated by approved tools using approved configurations is treated as [ORGANIZATION NAME] work product - Developers must not claim AI-generated code as solely their own creation in contexts where disclosure is required
8.2 Input Restrictions - Third-party code under restrictive licenses should not be input to AI tools without legal review - Client/customer code must not be input to AI tools unless contractually permitted
9. Monitoring and Compliance
- Usage of AI coding tools may be monitored for policy compliance
- [SECURITY TEAM] may audit AI-generated code samples periodically
- Policy violations should be reported to [REPORTING CHANNEL]
10. Training Requirements
Before using AI coding assistants, developers must complete: - [ ] [SECURITY AWARENESS TRAINING] - [ ] [AI TOOL-SPECIFIC TRAINING] - [ ] Acknowledgment of this policy
Incident Response Playbook: Supply Chain Attack¶
Use this playbook when a supply chain compromise is suspected or confirmed. Customize contact information, escalation paths, and communication templates for your organization.
Supply Chain Attack Incident Response Playbook¶
Playbook Information
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Version | [VERSION NUMBER] |
| Last Updated | [DATE] |
| Owner | [INCIDENT RESPONSE TEAM] |
| Review Frequency | [QUARTERLY/SEMI-ANNUAL] |
1. Playbook Scope
This playbook addresses incidents involving: - Compromised open source dependencies - Malicious packages (typosquatting, dependency confusion, account hijacking) - Compromised build systems or CI/CD pipelines - Compromised developer accounts or credentials - Upstream project compromises affecting our software
2. Severity Classification
| Severity | Criteria | Response Time |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Active exploitation; production systems affected; data breach potential | Immediate (< 1 hour) |
| High | Vulnerable component in production; no active exploitation observed | < 4 hours |
| Medium | Vulnerable component in non-production; or production with mitigating controls | < 24 hours |
| Low | Vulnerable component not deployed; theoretical risk only | < 72 hours |
3. Contact Information
Maintain current contact information. Update quarterly.
| Role | Primary Contact | Backup Contact | Escalation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incident Commander | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | [ESCALATION PATH] |
| Security Lead | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | |
| Engineering Lead | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | |
| Communications Lead | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | |
| Legal Counsel | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | |
| Executive Sponsor | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] | [NAME/PHONE/EMAIL] |
4. Detection and Identification
4.1 Potential Indicators - Security advisory for dependency in use - Dependabot/Snyk alert for malicious package - Unexpected network connections from build systems - Anomalous behavior in deployed applications - External notification from security researcher or vendor - News reports of widespread supply chain attack
4.2 Initial Assessment Checklist
- Identify the affected component (name, version, purl)
- Determine attack type (vulnerability, malware, backdoor, etc.)
- Query SBOM database: Which systems use this component?
- Identify deployment status: Development, staging, production?
- Determine data exposure potential
- Assess active exploitation indicators
- Assign initial severity level
- Activate incident response team if severity warrants
5. Containment
5.1 Immediate Containment (Critical/High)
- Isolate affected systems from network if active compromise suspected
- Block deployment pipelines to prevent further propagation
- Revoke potentially compromised credentials and tokens
- Preserve evidence: system images, logs, memory dumps
- Document all containment actions with timestamps
5.2 Short-Term Containment
- Identify clean version of affected component (or alternative)
- Block affected package versions in artifact repositories
- Enable enhanced monitoring on potentially affected systems
- Implement network-level blocks for known malicious infrastructure
6. Eradication
6.1 Dependency Remediation
- Update to patched version of component
- OR remove component and implement alternative
- OR apply vendor-provided workaround
- Regenerate any secrets that may have been exposed
- Rebuild affected artifacts from clean sources
- Update lockfiles and verify checksums
6.2 Build System Remediation (if compromised)
- Rotate all CI/CD secrets and tokens
- Rebuild CI/CD infrastructure from known-good state
- Audit recent builds for signs of tampering
- Re-sign artifacts built during compromise window
- Review and harden build pipeline configuration
7. Recovery
- Deploy remediated applications through standard pipeline
- Verify functionality through testing
- Monitor for anomalous behavior post-deployment
- Gradually restore normal operations
- Communicate resolution to stakeholders
8. Communication Templates
8.1 Internal Notification (Initial)
Subject: [SEVERITY] Security Incident - Supply Chain Component
A security incident involving [COMPONENT NAME] has been identified. The incident response team has been activated.
Current Status: [INVESTIGATING/CONTAINED/REMEDIATED] Affected Systems: [DESCRIPTION] Immediate Actions Required: [ACTIONS]
Updates will be provided every [TIMEFRAME]. Direct questions to [CONTACT].
8.2 Customer Notification (if required)
Subject: Security Advisory - [PRODUCT NAME]
[ORGANIZATION NAME] has identified and addressed a security issue affecting [PRODUCT/SERVICE].
What Happened: [BRIEF DESCRIPTION] Impact: [WHAT CUSTOMERS SHOULD KNOW] Actions Taken: [OUR RESPONSE] Customer Action Required: [IF ANY]
We are committed to transparency and security. Contact [SUPPORT CHANNEL] with questions.
9. Post-Incident Activities
- Conduct post-incident review within [5 BUSINESS DAYS]
- Document timeline and actions taken
- Identify root causes and contributing factors
- Develop recommendations for prevention
- Update detection capabilities based on learnings
- Update this playbook if gaps identified
- Brief leadership on incident and improvements
Vendor Security Questionnaire: Supply Chain Section¶
Include these questions in vendor security assessments when evaluating software vendors, SaaS providers, or development partners. Customize based on the criticality of the vendor relationship.
Software Supply Chain Security Assessment Questions¶
Instructions for Vendors: Please provide detailed responses to each question. Where policies or documentation exist, please provide copies or links. Indicate N/A only where the question does not apply to your product/service.
Section 1: Software Composition and Dependencies
1.1 Do you maintain a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for your products? - [ ] Yes - SPDX format - [ ] Yes - CycloneDX format - [ ] Yes - Other format: _______ - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
1.2 Can you provide SBOMs to customers upon request? - [ ] Yes, included with product - [ ] Yes, upon request - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
1.3 How do you track and manage open source dependencies? [FREE RESPONSE]
1.4 What is your process for evaluating new open source components before adoption? [FREE RESPONSE]
1.5 How do you monitor dependencies for known vulnerabilities? - [ ] Automated scanning (tool: _______) - [ ] Manual review - [ ] Third-party service - [ ] Not currently monitored - [ ] N/A
Section 2: Build and Release Security
2.1 Describe your build environment security controls. [FREE RESPONSE]
2.2 Do you sign release artifacts? - [ ] Yes - GPG signatures - [ ] Yes - Sigstore - [ ] Yes - Code signing certificates - [ ] Yes - Other: _______ - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
2.3 Do you generate and publish build provenance attestations? - [ ] Yes - SLSA provenance - [ ] Yes - Other format - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
2.4 What SLSA level do your build processes achieve? - [ ] SLSA Level 1 - [ ] SLSA Level 2 - [ ] SLSA Level 3 - [ ] SLSA Level 4 - [ ] Not assessed - [ ] N/A
2.5 Are your builds reproducible? - [ ] Yes, verified reproducible - [ ] Partially reproducible - [ ] No - [ ] Unknown - [ ] N/A
Section 3: Vulnerability Management
3.1 What is your SLA for addressing security vulnerabilities in dependencies?
| Severity | Target Remediation Time |
|---|---|
| Critical | |
| High | |
| Medium | |
| Low |
3.2 How do you communicate security vulnerabilities to customers? [FREE RESPONSE]
3.3 Do you have a vulnerability disclosure program? - [ ] Yes - Bug bounty program - [ ] Yes - security@email - [ ] Yes - Security advisories - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
3.4 Have you experienced a supply chain security incident in the past 24 months? - [ ] Yes (please describe in separate confidential attachment) - [ ] No - [ ] Prefer not to disclose
Section 4: Development Security Practices
4.1 Do you require multi-factor authentication for:
| System | MFA Required? |
|---|---|
| Source code repositories | [ ] Yes [ ] No |
| Package publishing | [ ] Yes [ ] No |
| CI/CD systems | [ ] Yes [ ] No |
| Production systems | [ ] Yes [ ] No |
4.2 Do you use branch protection on main/release branches? - [ ] Yes, with required reviews - [ ] Yes, basic protection - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
4.3 What static analysis security testing (SAST) tools do you use? [FREE RESPONSE]
4.4 Describe your code review process, including security review requirements. [FREE RESPONSE]
Section 5: Third-Party Risk
5.1 Do you assess the security of your own suppliers and dependencies? - [ ] Yes, formal program - [ ] Yes, informal process - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
5.2 Do you maintain a list of critical dependencies and their risk assessments? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No - [ ] N/A
5.3 Have any of your critical dependencies experienced security incidents in the past 24 months? [FREE RESPONSE]
Executive Briefing Template: Supply Chain Risk¶
Use this template to brief executive leadership on software supply chain risk posture. Customize metrics, risk ratings, and recommendations for your organization.
Software Supply Chain Security: Executive Briefing¶
Briefing Date: [DATE] Prepared By: [NAME/TITLE] Classification: [CONFIDENTIAL/INTERNAL] Audience: [EXECUTIVE TEAM/SPECIFIC LEADERS]
Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences summarizing current risk posture, key concerns, and recommended actions]
Example: Our software supply chain risk exposure has [increased/decreased/remained stable] this quarter. [X] critical vulnerabilities were identified in production dependencies, with [Y] remediated within SLA. We recommend [KEY RECOMMENDATION] to address emerging risks in [AREA].
Current Risk Posture
| Risk Domain | Rating | Trend | Key Metric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependency Vulnerabilities | [LOW/MED/HIGH/CRITICAL] | [↑↓→] | [X] critical vulns in production |
| Third-Party Code Exposure | [LOW/MED/HIGH/CRITICAL] | [↑↓→] | [X]% of codebase is third-party |
| Build System Security | [LOW/MED/HIGH/CRITICAL] | [↑↓→] | SLSA Level [X] achieved |
| Vendor/Supplier Risk | [LOW/MED/HIGH/CRITICAL] | [↑↓→] | [X] vendors assessed |
Key Metrics This Period
| Metric | Current | Previous | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical vulnerabilities in production | |||
| Mean time to remediate (critical) | |||
| Dependencies monitored | |||
| SBOM coverage | |||
| Vendors with security assessment |
Significant Incidents/Near Misses
Summarize any supply chain incidents or notable industry events relevant to the organization.
| Date | Event | Impact | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
Industry Context
[Brief summary of relevant industry developments: major attacks, new regulations, emerging threats]
Key Risks and Concerns
- [RISK TITLE]: [Description and potential business impact]
- Likelihood: [LOW/MED/HIGH]
- Impact: [LOW/MED/HIGH]
-
Mitigation Status: [IN PROGRESS/PLANNED/REQUIRED]
-
[RISK TITLE]: [Description and potential business impact]
- Likelihood: [LOW/MED/HIGH]
- Impact: [LOW/MED/HIGH]
- Mitigation Status: [IN PROGRESS/PLANNED/REQUIRED]
Recommendations
| Priority | Recommendation | Investment Required | Risk Reduced |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 3 |
Resource Requirements
[Summary of budget, headcount, or tool investments needed to address recommendations]
Decision Points
- Approve [RECOMMENDATION] investment of [AMOUNT]
- Escalate [RISK] to board risk committee
- Accept [RISK] with documented rationale
Board-Level Presentation Template¶
Use this template structure for board of directors or audit committee presentations on software supply chain security. Focus on business risk, regulatory compliance, and strategic implications.
Software Supply Chain Security: Board Presentation¶
Slide 1: Title - Software Supply Chain Security Update - [ORGANIZATION NAME] - [DATE] - [PRESENTER NAME/TITLE]
Slide 2: Executive Summary - Overall risk rating: [LOW/MODERATE/ELEVATED/HIGH] - Key message 1: [One sentence on current posture] - Key message 2: [One sentence on significant changes] - Key message 3: [One sentence on strategic priority] - Decision requested: [If any]
Slide 3: Why This Matters - [X]% of modern software is open source components - Supply chain attacks increased [X]% year-over-year (cite source) - Regulatory requirements: [RELEVANT REGULATIONS] - Peer incidents: [BRIEF REFERENCE TO INDUSTRY INCIDENTS] - Our exposure: [X] applications, [Y] dependencies, [Z] vendors
Slide 4: Our Supply Chain Security Program - Program maturity: [INITIAL/DEVELOPING/DEFINED/MANAGED/OPTIMIZING] - Key capabilities: - Dependency tracking and SBOM: [STATUS] - Vulnerability management: [STATUS] - Vendor security assessment: [STATUS] - Build security: [STATUS] - Investment to date: [AMOUNT] - Team: [SIZE/STRUCTURE]
Slide 5: Risk Dashboard
| Risk Area | Current | Target | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Known vulnerabilities | |||
| Unassessed dependencies | |||
| Unassessed vendors | |||
| Build security maturity |
Slide 6: Regulatory Compliance Status
| Requirement | Status | Gap | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| [REGULATION 1] | [COMPLIANT/PARTIAL/NON-COMPLIANT] | ||
| [REGULATION 2] | [COMPLIANT/PARTIAL/NON-COMPLIANT] | ||
| Customer requirements | [COMPLIANT/PARTIAL/NON-COMPLIANT] |
Slide 7: Incidents and Industry Context - Our incidents this period: [SUMMARY] - Industry incidents affecting peers: [SUMMARY] - Emerging threat trends: [SUMMARY]
Slide 8: Strategic Roadmap
| Initiative | Timeline | Investment | Risk Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| [INITIATIVE 1] | [QUARTER/YEAR] | [AMOUNT] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] |
| [INITIATIVE 2] | [QUARTER/YEAR] | [AMOUNT] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] |
| [INITIATIVE 3] | [QUARTER/YEAR] | [AMOUNT] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] |
Slide 9: Investment Request (if applicable) - Total request: [AMOUNT] - Breakdown by category: - Tooling: [AMOUNT] - Personnel: [AMOUNT] - Third-party services: [AMOUNT] - Expected risk reduction: [QUANTIFIED IF POSSIBLE] - Compliance requirements addressed: [LIST]
Slide 10: Recommendation and Decision Points - Management recommendation: [SUMMARY] - Decision requested: - [ ] Approve FY[XX] supply chain security budget of [AMOUNT] - [ ] Acknowledge current risk posture - [ ] [OTHER DECISIONS] - Questions for discussion
Template Usage Notes¶
Customization Guidance
When adapting these templates:
-
Align with existing policies: Ensure terminology and thresholds are consistent with your organization's risk management framework and existing security policies.
-
Adjust thresholds to risk tolerance: The specific numbers provided (e.g., CVSS scores, remediation timelines) should be calibrated to your organization's risk appetite and operational capabilities.
-
Consider regulatory requirements: Modify compliance sections to address your specific regulatory environment (NIST, SOC 2, FedRAMP, industry-specific regulations).
-
Maintain version control: Track changes to policies and templates, especially as regulations and best practices evolve.
-
Review periodically: Schedule annual reviews of all policies, with interim updates when significant changes occur in the threat landscape or regulatory environment.
-
Obtain appropriate approvals: Route policies through legal, compliance, and executive review before implementation.