Attestation
Attestation represents a cryptographically signed statement that verifies specific facts about a software artifact throughout its lifecycle. For DevSecOps leaders and security directors managing complex software development lifecycles, attestation serves as a fundamental mechanism for establishing trust and verifying the integrity of code as it moves from development through production. This cryptographic proof creates an immutable record that specific security controls were applied, particular processes were followed, or certain conditions were met during software creation and delivery.
The concept of attestation has become increasingly critical as organizations face mounting pressure to secure their software supply chains against sophisticated attacks. When a build system, security scanner, or deployment tool generates an attestation, it creates verifiable evidence that can be independently validated by downstream consumers without requiring blind trust in the process itself.
What is Attestation in Software Security?
Attestation in the context of software supply chain security is defined as a digitally signed document that makes claims about software artifacts, their origins, the processes used to create them, and the security measures applied during their lifecycle. These attestations function as tamper-evident receipts that prove certain actions occurred or specific conditions were met.
At its core, an attestation binds together three critical components: the identity of who or what created the attestation (the attester), the specific claims being made about a software artifact, and a cryptographic signature that proves the attestation hasn't been modified since creation. This combination allows security teams to verify not just that software passed a security scan, but specifically which scanner version was used, when it ran, what policy it evaluated against, and who initiated the scan.
Modern attestation frameworks typically use standard formats like in-toto attestations or SLSA provenance documents. These standardized formats ensure that attestations generated by different tools in your pipeline can be consumed and verified by various enforcement points throughout your infrastructure. The SLSA framework has emerged as a leading standard for defining what information attestations should contain and how they should be structured.
Core Components of Software Attestations
Every attestation contains several essential elements that work together to create verifiable proof:
- Subject: The software artifact being attested to, typically identified by its cryptographic digest
- Predicate: The actual claims or statements being made about the subject
- Predicate Type: The schema defining what kind of attestation this is (provenance, vulnerability scan, code review, etc.)
- Metadata: Contextual information including timestamps, tool versions, and environmental details
- Signature: Cryptographic proof binding all components together and verifying the attester's identity
The subject typically includes the artifact's hash rather than its name or version, because names can be reused but cryptographic hashes uniquely identify exact file contents. This specificity means an attestation about version "2.1.3" of your application proves facts about that precise binary, not just any binary someone might label with that version number.
Explanation of How Attestation Works in DevSecOps Pipelines
Attestation generation happens at various stages throughout your software development and delivery pipeline. Each tool or system that performs a security-relevant action can generate an attestation documenting what it did. Build systems create provenance attestations documenting source code origins and build parameters. Security scanners generate attestations recording their findings. Code review systems can attest that human approval occurred. Deployment systems can attest to successful verification checks before releasing software to production.
The attestation workflow typically follows this pattern: A tool performs some action or check on a software artifact. Upon completion, it generates a structured document containing claims about what it did. The tool then signs this document using a private key associated with its identity. The resulting signed attestation gets stored in an attestation repository or registry alongside the artifact itself. Later, when someone wants to deploy or use that artifact, they retrieve the associated attestations and verify their signatures and contents against policy requirements.
What makes attestation powerful is that verification can happen independently of the original attestation generation. Your deployment system doesn't need to trust your build system directly - it only needs to verify that a valid attestation exists from an authorized attester making the required claims. This separation of concerns allows security policy to be enforced at the boundaries where it matters most, rather than hoping every upstream system behaves correctly.
Attestation Generation Process
The technical process of generating attestations involves several cryptographic operations that ensure integrity and non-repudiation. When a system generates an attestation, it first collects all the relevant facts it wants to assert: what artifact it examined, what process it performed, what results it found, and contextual metadata about the environment and tooling.
These facts get structured according to a predefined schema, creating a standardized document that other systems can parse and understand. The system then computes a cryptographic hash of this document and signs that hash using a private signing key. The signature proves two things: that the attestation came from whoever controls that private key, and that the document hasn't been altered since signing.
Key management becomes crucial here. The private keys used to sign attestations must be carefully protected, since anyone with access to them could forge attestations. Organizations implementing attestation typically use hardware security modules, key management services, or systems like Sigstore to manage signing keys securely. Sigstore provides keyless signing where attestations are signed using short-lived certificates tied to OpenID Connect identities, eliminating the need to manage long-lived private keys.
Attestation Verification and Policy Enforcement
Verification represents the other half of the attestation lifecycle. When an artifact arrives at a control point - perhaps a Kubernetes admission controller, a deployment gate, or a package registry - the verification system retrieves attestations associated with that specific artifact and evaluates them against policy requirements.
The verification process involves several steps:
- Retrieving all attestations associated with the artifact's cryptographic digest
- Verifying the cryptographic signatures on each attestation
- Checking that the signers are authorized to make those types of claims
- Evaluating the attestation contents against defined policy rules
- Making an allow/deny decision based on whether required attestations exist with acceptable claims
Policy definitions specify what attestations must exist for an artifact to be trusted. Your policy might require that every container image deployed to production must have a provenance attestation from an authorized build system, a vulnerability scan attestation showing no critical vulnerabilities, and a code review attestation confirming human approval. Missing any of these attestations, or having attestations with unacceptable claims, would cause deployment to be blocked.
Definition of Attestation Types and Use Cases
Different attestation types serve different purposes within your security strategy. Understanding the various types helps security teams design comprehensive verification strategies that cover all critical aspects of software integrity.
Provenance Attestations
Provenance attestations document the origins and build process for software artifacts. These attestations answer questions like: Where did the source code come from? What build system created this artifact? What dependencies were included? What build parameters were used? Provenance forms the foundation of supply chain security because it establishes the chain of custody from source code through to deployable artifacts.
A comprehensive provenance attestation includes information about the source repository and commit, the build platform and builder image, the build command and parameters, any dependencies fetched during the build, and environmental details like timestamps and runner IDs. This level of detail allows you to detect unexpected variations in your build process that might indicate compromise or misconfiguration.
The SLSA provenance format defines different levels of provenance completeness, with higher levels requiring more detailed information and stronger isolation guarantees. Achieving higher SLSA levels typically means attestations must prove that builds happened in isolated, ephemeral environments where tampering becomes much harder.
Vulnerability Scan Attestations
Vulnerability scan attestations record the results of security scanning performed on artifacts. These attestations document which scanning tool ran, what vulnerability databases it used, what findings it discovered, and what severity levels those findings represented. Rather than just storing scan results in a separate database, embedding them in signed attestations means the results travel with the artifact and can be verified as authentic.
Scan attestations prevent several attack scenarios. They stop attackers from deploying vulnerable images by simply skipping the scanning step, since the deployment gate requires a valid scan attestation. They prevent scan result tampering, since the cryptographic signature would break if someone modified the findings. They provide an audit trail showing what security checks were performed and when, which proves invaluable during incident response and compliance audits.
Test and Code Review Attestations
Test attestations prove that software passed required testing suites before deployment. These might document unit test results, integration test outcomes, security test findings, or performance test metrics. Code review attestations record that human developers reviewed changes according to your organization's policies, including details about who reviewed the code, when the review occurred, and whether they approved or requested changes.
These human-in-the-loop attestations are particularly valuable because they prove that automated processes alone didn't produce the artifact. Many sophisticated supply chain attacks target the automation itself, but requiring attestations of human review creates an additional control that's harder to bypass at scale.
Policy Compliance Attestations
Policy compliance attestations document that software artifacts meet specific organizational or regulatory requirements. These might attest that an artifact complies with specific security policies, includes required licensing information, meets performance benchmarks, or satisfies industry regulations. Policy attestations often aggregate information from multiple other attestation types, providing a higher-level statement about overall compliance.
How to Implement Attestation in Your Software Supply Chain
Implementing attestation across your software supply chain requires careful planning and phased rollout. Organizations successful with attestation typically start small, prove value quickly, then expand coverage systematically.
Starting with Build Provenance
Most organizations begin their attestation journey by implementing build provenance. This provides immediate value by documenting where your artifacts come from and creates the foundation for additional attestation types. Modern CI/CD platforms increasingly support generating provenance attestations natively or through plugins.
Your build pipeline needs three capabilities to generate provenance: the ability to collect information about the build process, the ability to structure that information into a standard attestation format, and the ability to sign the attestation cryptographically. Tools like GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, and Jenkins all have mechanisms for generating signed provenance, either through native features or community-maintained plugins.
Start by enabling provenance generation for a small number of critical applications. Verify that attestations are being created correctly and stored accessibly. Then implement basic verification at a deployment boundary, initially in monitoring mode where violations are logged but not enforced. This allows you to identify gaps in attestation coverage before enforcement would cause disruptions.
Integrating Security Scanning
Once build provenance is working smoothly, add attestations from your security scanning tools. Container scanners, SAST tools, DAST tools, and dependency scanners can all generate attestations documenting their findings. The key is ensuring these tools sign their results rather than just storing them in separate databases.
Some scanning tools support attestation generation natively, while others require wrapper scripts that run the scanner then package results into signed attestations. The Kusari platform provides integrations that automatically convert scan results from popular tools into properly formatted and signed attestations, simplifying this integration work.
Establishing Verification Points
With attestations being generated, the next step is implementing verification at critical control points. Common verification points include container registries that verify attestations before accepting images, Kubernetes admission controllers that verify attestations before allowing pod creation, and deployment pipelines that verify attestations before promoting artifacts to production environments.
Verification policies should be expressed declaratively, separating policy definition from enforcement mechanisms. Tools like Open Policy Agent (OPA) allow you to write policies that evaluate attestations, while enforcement tools like Gatekeeper, Kyverno, or admission webhooks implement those policies at runtime.
Start with permissive policies that allow most traffic but log violations. Gradually tighten policies as attestation coverage improves and you gain confidence that legitimate workflows produce the required attestations. This graduated approach prevents the common mistake of implementing overly strict policies that block legitimate work and get disabled out of frustration.
Managing Attestation Storage and Retrieval
Attestations need to be stored reliably and retrieved efficiently when verification occurs. Several storage patterns have emerged: storing attestations alongside artifacts in the same registry, using dedicated attestation storage services, or embedding attestations directly in artifact metadata.
Container registries increasingly support storing attestations as OCI artifacts linked to container images through reference tags or manifest lists. This keeps attestations and images together, simplifying discovery and retrieval. For artifacts stored in other systems, dedicated attestation stores provide APIs for storing and retrieving attestations indexed by artifact digest.
The storage system must ensure attestation integrity and availability. Attestations are useless if they can be modified after creation or if they're unavailable when verification needs to occur. Most implementations use immutable storage backends that prevent modification once attestations are written.
Best Practices for Attestation Implementation
Organizations that successfully implement attestation tend to follow several common practices that maximize security value while minimizing operational friction.
Standardize on Common Formats
Using standardized attestation formats like in-toto attestations or SLSA provenance enables interoperability between different tools in your pipeline. Avoid proprietary attestation formats that lock you into specific vendors or require custom verification logic. Standard formats mean you can replace attestation generators or verifiers without disrupting your entire system.
The SLSA framework provides clear guidance on attestation formats and what information they should contain at different maturity levels. Following these standards ensures your attestations will be usable by the growing ecosystem of supply chain security tools.
Implement Defense in Depth
Attestation works best as one layer in a comprehensive security strategy, not as the only control. Combine attestation verification with other security measures like network segmentation, runtime security monitoring, and vulnerability management. Attestations verify that artifacts were built and scanned correctly, but runtime protections detect and respond to unexpected behavior during execution.
Multiple verification points throughout your pipeline create redundancy that prevents single points of failure. Verify attestations when images are pushed to registries, when they're deployed to clusters, and even at runtime before container execution. This layered approach means an attacker would need to bypass multiple independent verification systems to deploy malicious code.
Automate Attestation Generation
Manual attestation generation doesn't scale and creates opportunities for human error or malicious behavior. Every tool in your pipeline that performs security-relevant actions should automatically generate and sign attestations without requiring human intervention. This automation ensures consistent attestation coverage and prevents developers from forgetting or skipping attestation generation.
Automation also reduces the burden on development teams. When attestation generation is built into existing tools and workflows, developers don't need to learn new processes or remember additional steps. Security becomes transparent rather than an obstacle.
Monitor Attestation Coverage and Compliance
Track what percentage of your artifacts have required attestations. Low coverage indicates gaps in your implementation where artifacts are being deployed without proper verification. Monitor attestation verification failures to identify artifacts that don't meet policy requirements, which might indicate security issues or process problems.
Regular auditing of attestation policies ensures they remain aligned with your security objectives. As threats evolve and your organization's risk tolerance changes, policies should be updated accordingly. Review denied deployments to understand whether policy violations represent genuine security issues or overly restrictive rules that need adjustment.
Plan for Key Management and Rotation
The private keys used to sign attestations represent critical security assets. Compromise of signing keys would allow attackers to forge attestations, completely undermining your verification strategy. Implement strong key management practices including hardware security modules, key rotation schedules, and access controls that limit who can use signing keys.
Consider using keyless signing approaches like Sigstore that eliminate long-lived private keys. With keyless signing, attestations are signed using short-lived certificates tied to identity providers, and transparency logs provide tamper-evident records of all signatures. This approach dramatically simplifies key management while maintaining strong security guarantees.
Common Challenges in Attestation Adoption
Organizations implementing attestation often encounter several predictable challenges. Understanding these ahead of time helps you plan mitigation strategies.
Legacy Systems and Tools
Older build systems, registries, and deployment tools may not support attestation generation or verification. Retrofitting attestation into these legacy systems requires wrapper scripts, proxy services, or gradual migration to newer tools. Rather than letting legacy systems block attestation adoption, implement attestation for new systems and applications first, then gradually expand coverage to legacy applications as they're modernized.
Performance and Latency Concerns
Adding attestation verification to deployment pipelines introduces additional steps that can increase deployment latency. Cryptographic signature verification is computationally inexpensive, but retrieving attestations from storage and evaluating complex policies can add noticeable delay. Optimization strategies include caching verification results, pre-fetching attestations before they're needed, and implementing efficient attestation storage with low-latency retrieval.
For high-throughput environments, consider asynchronous verification where artifacts are allowed to proceed while verification happens in parallel, with automated rollback if verification fails. This pattern maintains deployment velocity while still enforcing attestation requirements.
Developer Experience and Friction
Poorly implemented attestation can slow down development velocity and frustrate engineering teams. The key to avoiding this problem is making attestation generation and verification as transparent as possible. When attestation happens automatically as part of existing workflows and only blocks obviously problematic artifacts, developers barely notice it. When attestation requires manual steps or frequently blocks legitimate work, resistance builds quickly.
Provide clear feedback when attestation verification fails. Rather than cryptic error messages, explain exactly what attestation was missing or what policy requirement wasn't met, and provide documentation about how to resolve the issue. Good observability around attestation failures turns them from frustrating blockers into learning opportunities that help developers understand security requirements.
Policy Management Complexity
As attestation adoption grows, policy management can become complex. Different applications or environments might require different attestations, and policies need to evolve as security requirements change. Centralized policy management tools help maintain consistency while allowing flexibility where needed.
Start with simple, broadly applicable policies and increase sophistication gradually. A policy requiring basic provenance attestations for all production deployments provides immediate value without overwhelming complexity. Over time, add more nuanced policies that vary by application risk level, deployment environment, or compliance requirements.
Attestation and Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory frameworks increasingly recognize software supply chain security as critical to overall cybersecurity posture. Attestation provides the evidence needed to demonstrate compliance with various regulations and standards.
Executive Order 14028 and Federal Requirements
The U.S. Executive Order on Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity requires software vendors selling to federal agencies to provide Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) and attest to following secure development practices. Attestation provides the mechanism for making these claims in a verifiable, tamper-evident way. Rather than simply asserting that your organization follows secure practices, attestations prove that specific security controls were applied to specific software versions.
SOC 2 and Security Audits
SOC 2 audits evaluate whether organizations have implemented appropriate security controls. Attestation provides auditable evidence that security controls are actually being enforced. Rather than just having policies that say all code must be reviewed or all images must be scanned, attestations prove these controls were applied to actual artifacts deployed in production.
The audit trail created by attestations simplifies compliance reporting. When auditors ask what security scans were performed on production software, you can provide cryptographically verifiable attestations rather than just database records that could have been modified.
Industry-Specific Requirements
Industries like finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure have specific security requirements for software systems. Attestation helps demonstrate compliance with these requirements by providing verifiable evidence of security controls. PCI DSS, HIPAA, and other frameworks all include requirements around software security that attestation can help satisfy.
The Future of Attestation in Software Security
Attestation technology and practices continue to evolve rapidly as the software security community gains experience with supply chain threats and attestation implementation.
Emerging Standards and Specifications
The attestation ecosystem is converging around common standards that improve interoperability. The SLSA framework provides increasingly detailed specifications for provenance attestations. The in-toto project defines flexible attestation formats that can represent many types of claims. OpenSSF projects are developing additional standards for vulnerability disclosure, security reviews, and other attestation types.
These standards are moving from theoretical specifications to production-ready implementations supported by major platforms and tools. GitHub, GitLab, Google Cloud, and other platforms now generate standards-compliant attestations, making it easier for organizations to adopt attestation without building custom implementations.
Integration with AI and Machine Learning
Machine learning models present unique supply chain challenges, and attestation frameworks are adapting to address them. Model cards, data sheets, and training provenance attestations document how models were created, what data they were trained on, and what validation they underwent. As AI systems become more critical to organizational operations, attestations about their provenance and properties will become as important as attestations about traditional software.
Runtime Attestation and Dynamic Verification
Current attestation practices focus primarily on build-time and deployment-time verification. Emerging approaches extend attestation into runtime, using technologies like confidential computing to generate attestations about the actual execution environment. Runtime attestations can prove that software is running in trusted hardware, that it hasn't been tampered with after deployment, or that it's operating within expected parameters.
Decentralized and Transparency Log Systems
Transparency logs like those used by Sigstore create public, append-only records of all attestations and signatures. This transparency makes it much harder for attackers to forge attestations without detection, since any verification can check that an attestation appears in the public log. Decentralized approaches using blockchain or other distributed ledger technologies provide similar benefits without relying on centralized services.
These systems trade some privacy for security, since attestation metadata becomes publicly visible. Organizations need to balance the security benefits of transparency against concerns about revealing details of their software development processes.
Securing Your Supply Chain with Comprehensive Attestation
Building a robust attestation strategy requires more than just implementing individual tools - it requires comprehensive platform capabilities that generate, store, verify, and manage attestations across your entire software supply chain. Managing cryptographic signatures, policy definitions, key rotation, and verification logic across multiple tools and environments can quickly become overwhelming without the right platform support.
Kusari provides enterprise-grade supply chain security built on attestation principles. Our platform automatically generates standards-compliant attestations from your existing CI/CD tools, stores them securely with efficient retrieval, and enforces verification policies across your deployment environments. We handle the complexity of key management, policy evolution, and integration with your existing toolchain so your team can focus on building secure software rather than managing attestation infrastructure.
Ready to strengthen your software supply chain with comprehensive attestation? Schedule a demo to see how Kusari can simplify attestation adoption while providing enterprise-scale security and compliance capabilities.
How Does Attestation Improve Software Supply Chain Security?
Attestation improves software supply chain security by providing cryptographically verifiable proof that security controls were applied to software artifacts. Rather than trusting that upstream systems behaved correctly, attestation allows downstream systems to independently verify claims about artifact origins, build processes, security scans, and approvals. This verification happens cryptographically, meaning attestations can be validated without trusting the systems that generated them - you only need to verify the cryptographic signatures.
The security benefit comes from making attacks much more difficult. An attacker who compromises a build system can no longer simply inject malicious code, because that code won't have valid attestations from the compromised system. An attacker who steals artifacts from a registry can't modify them without breaking the attestation signatures. Supply chain attacks that work by bypassing security controls get blocked because the lack of required attestations triggers verification failures.
Attestation also provides visibility into your supply chain that enables better security decisions. By analyzing attestations across your artifact population, you can identify unusual patterns that might indicate compromise, track security control coverage, and verify that policies are being enforced consistently. This visibility transforms supply chain security from hoping everything works correctly to having verifiable proof of security posture.
What is the Difference Between Attestation and Traditional Security Scanning?
The key difference between attestation and traditional security scanning is that attestation provides cryptographically signed proof of scan results that travels with artifacts, while traditional scanning typically stores results in separate databases. When a traditional vulnerability scanner examines a container image, it usually uploads findings to a centralized vulnerability management system. This approach creates several problems: the scan results can become separated from the artifact, there's no cryptographic link proving which artifact was scanned, and the results can be modified after the fact.
Attestation-based scanning generates a signed attestation documenting the scan results and binds it cryptographically to the specific artifact digest. The attestation proves exactly which artifact was scanned, which scanner version was used, what policy it evaluated against, and what findings were discovered. The cryptographic signature prevents tampering, and the attestation travels with the artifact through the supply chain rather than living in a separate database.
This distinction becomes critical when artifacts move between environments or organizations. Traditional scan results don't transfer easily - the receiving environment needs to trust the sender's vulnerability database or rescan artifacts themselves. Attestation-based scan results are self-contained and cryptographically verifiable, allowing receiving environments to trust the results without needing access to the original scanning infrastructure. Your deployment system can verify that scanning occurred without needing to trust that the scanning system is honest.
How Do Organizations Get Started with Attestation Implementation?
Organizations getting started with attestation implementation should begin by identifying a small, manageable scope where attestation can provide immediate value. The most common starting point is implementing build provenance attestations for a critical application or set of services. This focused approach allows teams to learn attestation concepts, work through technical challenges, and demonstrate value before expanding to broader adoption.
The implementation process typically follows several phases. First, enable attestation generation in your build system. Most modern CI/CD platforms support generating SLSA provenance attestations either natively or through plugins. Configure your build pipelines to generate and sign provenance attestations, then verify they're being created correctly and stored accessibly. This initial phase establishes the foundation for all subsequent attestation work.
Next, implement basic attestation verification at a deployment boundary. Choose a control point where you can verify attestations before artifacts are deployed - perhaps a Kubernetes admission controller or a deployment pipeline gate. Start with monitoring mode where missing or invalid attestations are logged but don't block deployment. This allows you to identify gaps in attestation coverage and understand what percentage of your artifacts currently have valid attestations. Once coverage is high and you've addressed gaps, switch to enforcement mode where invalid artifacts are actually blocked.
After build provenance is working well, expand to additional attestation types like vulnerability scans, code reviews, and compliance checks. Each new attestation type follows the same pattern: enable generation, verify attestations are being created correctly, implement verification in monitoring mode, then enforce once coverage is sufficient. Throughout the process, focus on making attestation transparent to developers by automating generation and providing clear feedback when verification fails.
What Role Does Attestation Play in Achieving SLSA Compliance?
Attestation plays a fundamental role in achieving SLSA compliance because SLSA requirements are largely expressed in terms of what attestations must exist for software artifacts. SLSA (Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts) defines four levels of supply chain security maturity, with higher levels requiring more comprehensive and detailed attestations about build processes, source provenance, and security controls.
At SLSA Level 1, basic build provenance attestation must exist documenting that the build process occurred and what source code was used. This entry-level requirement establishes the foundation of supply chain visibility. SLSA Level 2 requires that builds happen using a hosted build service that automatically generates signed provenance attestations, preventing developers from manually creating or modifying provenance. Level 3 adds requirements for build platform hardening and stronger isolation guarantees, with attestations proving that builds occurred in ephemeral, isolated environments.
SLSA Level 4, the highest maturity level, requires comprehensive provenance attestations created by two-party review. At this level, attestation must document not just that a build occurred, but prove that it happened in a completely isolated environment where even the build platform operator couldn't tamper with the process. These attestations provide the strongest possible assurance about artifact origins and build integrity.
The SLSA framework provides detailed specifications for what information provenance attestations must contain at each level, and compliance is largely measured by whether artifacts have properly formatted attestations with the required information. Organizations pursuing SLSA compliance focus on implementing attestation generation that meets the requirements for their target level, then implementing verification that enforces those requirements at deployment time. Achieving higher SLSA levels means evolving both the attestations you generate and the infrastructure that generates them to provide stronger security guarantees.
Building Trust Through Verifiable Attestation
Software supply chain security ultimately comes down to establishing trust in complex, distributed systems where many parties contribute to the software you ultimately run in production. Attestation provides the mechanism for building that trust not through blind faith in upstream providers, but through cryptographic verification of specific claims about software origins, security controls, and compliance status.
The organizations most successful with attestation treat it not as a compliance checkbox but as a fundamental shift in how they establish trust throughout their software supply chain. They systematically identify points where trust assertions happen - builds, scans, reviews, deployments - and transform those assertions into verifiable attestations. They implement verification at critical control points where those attestations get evaluated against policy requirements. Most significantly, they recognize that attestation enables a security model based on verification rather than trust, dramatically reducing the attack surface available to supply chain compromises.
As software supply chain attacks continue to grow in sophistication and impact, attestation will become table stakes for organizations serious about security. The question isn't whether to implement attestation, but how quickly you can adopt it comprehensively across your development and deployment infrastructure. Starting with focused pilots, proving value quickly, then expanding systematically allows organizations to build attestation capabilities without disrupting existing workflows. The result is measurably stronger supply chain security backed by cryptographic proof rather than hopeful assumptions.