An Air Gap Doesn't Remove the Supply Chain. It Makes Every Crossing a Decision.
Sonatype argues air gaps shift rather than eliminate supply-chain risk, urging formalised artefact-ingestion governance — a timely reminder as CRA supply-chain obligations take shape.
Summary written by editorial AI · Source link below
For years, air-gapped environments have been the gold standard for protecting classified systems and critical infrastructure. Isolate the network, remove the path, reduce the risk. The logic held, and it still does. An air gap does exactly what it was designed to do.
Editorial Analysis
European critical infrastructure operators often assume air gaps provide absolute protection, but ungoverned software crossings create blind spots that CRA and NIS2 auditors will scrutinise.
Implement automated integrity checks (hash verification, SBOM validation) at every air-gap crossing point.
Air-gapped networks are only as secure as the governance around every software artefact that crosses the boundary.
Forward-looking interpretation drafted by editorial AI under human review — not a reproduction of the source. See methodology.
External link — opens at Sonatype Blog in a new tab.
More from the DevSecOps Desk
- 91 Spring CVEs: The AI Vulnerability Consumption Problem21 Aug
- 14 Trojanized npm Packages Drop RedC2 4.0 Linux Backdoor With AI-Assisted C221 Aug
- Reproducibility is Not Enough: Artifact Verifiability in Decentralized-Build Package Ecosystems21 Aug
- Rust Supply Chain Attack Puts Build-Time Malware in Crates with 245 Million Downloads20 Aug
- Hackers poison arrayref Rust crate to push infostealer malware20 Aug