Repository navigation
fix(2.0): restrict NIST quantum security level to 0–5 - #1186
Merged
stevespringett merged 1 commit intoOct 30, 2026
Merged
stevespringett merged 1 commit into
stevespringett merged 1 commit into
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Mehrn0ush <mehrnoush.vaseghi@gmail.com>
stevespringett
approved these changes
Oct 30, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #1185.
The 2.0 schema accepts nistQuantumSecurityLevel values from 0 through 6, but NIST defines categories 1–5. CycloneDX defines 0 as indicating that none of those categories are met; 6 has no documented meaning.
Compatibility
Documents containing nistQuantumSecurityLevel: 6 will fail validation against the updated 2.0 schema. Published 1.6 and 1.7 schemas remain unchanged; tightening their bounds requires a separate compatibility decision.
Validation
Thanks to @stevespringett and @bhess for the discussion. I’d appreciate your feedback and guidance on the proposed changes.