PKI Consortium · Working Group
CBOM Profiles
a neutral methodology for cryptography bills of materials
The working home of the PKI Consortium CBOM Profiles Working Group. We are developing a single deliverable: a vendor-neutral, format-independent methodology for defining CBOM profiles — one that any sector can follow and that maps cleanly onto both CycloneDX and SPDX.
- 13
- methodology aspects
- 2
- working deliverables
- 73
- reference sources
- 15
- jurisdictions tracked
What we're building
A profile, not another format.
A CBOM profile is a constrained, use-case-specific specification of what a Cryptography Bill of Materials should contain, how its fields are interpreted, and what validation rules apply. Our methodology describes how to define one — independently of any single base standard.
Profiles are designed to map onto existing BOM standards such as CycloneDX and SPDX rather than compete with them. The PKIC output is intended to become the reference any industry consults when creating a CBOM profile for a particular use case.
The methodology, worked through
The draft, explained against a subject anyone can check.
The methodology documentation sets out the approach in full and applies it to an ordinary example: an nginx web server, its CBOM expressed in CycloneDX 1.7, checked against a small product-independent profile. One CBOM conforms and one does not, and you can run the check yourself.
It covers the vocabulary the methodology rests on, how a profile is written and validated, how the same profile maps onto CycloneDX and SPDX, how cryptographic weakness is communicated alongside a CBOM rather than inside one, what happens to older CBOM files, and how profiles are governed over time. Start with the introduction, the model, the profile itself, or the interactive conformance check.
Explore the project
Seven places to dig in.
Methodology
The deliverable itself — profiles, the relationship model, format mappings and governance — with a worked nginx example and a conformance check you can run.
Read the methodology → 1 of 9 developedUse cases
Use cases carried through from a consumer's decision to a finished profile. PQC migration is developed in full, IoT device estates is drafted against a template, and the other seven purposes are described and waiting.
See the use cases → 13 aspectsIssues
The thirteen methodology aspects, each tracked as a discussion block. This is where the work happens — read a topic, weigh in, or raise one.
Open the aspects → 73 sourcesReferences
The evidence base — standards, regulation and guidance the methodology aligns to, filterable by category, status and jurisdiction.
Browse the register → 39 toolsTooling
Software that generates, consumes, validates or analyses CBOMs, each linked to where its maintainer states CBOM support. A listing, not an endorsement.
Browse the tools → Agendas and recordingsMeetings
When the group meets and what it plans to settle. Upcoming meetings carry an agenda; past ones carry the recording and the slides presented, ready to download.
See the schedule → No install requiredContributing
How to take part — join a discussion, raise an aspect topic, or suggest a reference by email. No command line, no YAML.
Read the guide → PKI ConsortiumWorking group
The charter, membership and standing of the CBOM Profiles Working Group within the PKI Consortium.
Visit the working group ↗Why a profile is needed
The gap the methodology fills.
Almost every jurisdiction now requires organisations to hold a cryptographic inventory. Almost none of them says what that inventory should look like.
India's CERT-In guidelines are the exception that proves the rule — they name the CBOM outright. Everywhere else the obligation is stated and the format is left open. A neutral CBOM profile is what turns "keep an inventory" into something producers and consumers can actually exchange and verify. The reference register is the evidence base for that argument.
How we work
Deliberation, decision and artifact are kept deliberately separate.
Deliberation
The open argument — options, trade-offs and questions — lives in a GitHub Issue or Discussion.
Decision
The agreed outcome, with its reasoning, is captured as a short record in the
/decisions folder — the project's permanent memory.
Artifact
The specification text itself changes only through a pull request, so every edit is reviewed line by line. We work by lazy consensus.
Take part
You don't need to be a developer or install anything. If you can use a web forum, you can contribute fully — pick an aspect and say your piece.