May 17, 2020

Japan auto supply chain recovering faster than expected

Supply Chain
Supply Chain Problems
auto supply chain
car
Freddie Pierce
2 min
New study reveals Japan’s auto operating rate is over 80 percent, buoyed by a resilient auto supply chain
If you had to guess in terms of operating rate how Japans auto supply chain was faring just months following one of the worst natural disaster in the c...

If you had to guess in terms of operating rate how Japan’s auto supply chain was faring just months following one of the worst natural disaster in the country’s history, what would you say?

Would you guess that Toyota, Honda, Nissan and others were producing at 50 percent capacity? Less than that?

One independent study looked to find exactly that, and it was found that Japan’s car manufacturers had recovered to reach an operating rate of more than 80 percent, with carmakers reaching operating levels of more than 90 percent by September.

As a result, the study concludes that the negative impacts on Japanese automakers’ revenue will be less than initially expected. According to the study, all vehicle manufacturers and major suppliers are expected to report profits at the end of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends on the last day of March next year.

“The rest of Japan, including the northern areas hit hardest by the earthquake and tsunami, are expected to have sufficient capacity without having to ask manufacturers to scale back operations,” the report said.

SEE OTHER TOP STORIES IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN DIGITAL CONTENT NETWORK

Japan supply chain affecting India car market

Nissan stays ahead of the supply chain curve

Lexus losing ground in U.S.

Check out the latest issue of Supply Chain Digital!

Of more importance in the study are the sites of the suppliers who could be permanently closed in an effort to stop the spread of radiation around the damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. The Japanese government has created a 12.5-mile exclusion zone around the nuclear plant, where there are five auto supply factories.

“More problematic is if the government expands the 12.5-mile zone to 19 miles or 25 miles or 38 miles,” the report said.

While that could very well happen and further affect the nation’s factories and manufacturing areas, credit is due to the Japanese government and Japanese people for a swift recovery. The global economy has been fragile ever since the recession, and Japan’s government needed to act decisively to negate what could have been a sledgehammer blow to economies around the world.

Share article

Jun 21, 2021

Google and NIST Address Supply Chain Cybersecurity

Google
NIST
SLSA4
Sonatype
Elise Leise
3 min
The SolarWinds and Codecov cyberattacks reminded companies that software security poses a critical risk. How do we mitigate it?

As high-level supply chain attacks hit the news, Google and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have both developed proposals for how to address software supply chain security. This isn’t a new field, unfortunately. Since supply chains are a critical part of business resilience, criminals have no qualms about targeting its software. That’s why identifying, assessing, and mitigating cyber supply chain risks (C-SCRM) is at the top of Google and NIST’s respective agendas. 

 

High-Profile Supply Chain Attacks 

According to Google, no comprehensive end-to-end framework exists to mitigate threats across the software supply chain. [Yet] ‘there is an urgent need for a solution in the face of the eye-opening, multi-billion-dollar attacks in recent months...some of which could have been prevented or made more difficult’. 

 

Here are several of the largest cybersecurity failures in recent months: 

 

  • SolarWinds. Alleged Russian hackers slipped malicious code into a routine software update, which they then used as a Trojan horse for a massive cyberattack. 
  • Codecov. Attackers used automation to collect credentials and raid ‘additional resources’, such as data from other software development vendors. 
  • Malicious attacks on open-source repositories. Out of 1,000 GitHub accounts, more than one in five contained at least one dependency confusion-related misconfiguration. 

 

As a result of these attacks and Biden’s recent cybersecurity mandate, NIST and Google took action. NIST held a 1,400-person workshop and published 150 papers worth of recommendations from Microsoft, Synopsys, The Linux Foundation, and other software experts; Google will work with popular source, build, and packaging platforms to help companies implement and excel at their SLSA framework

 

What Are Their Recommendations? 

Here’s a quick recap: NIST has grouped together recommendations to create federal standards; Google has developed an end-to-end framework called Supply Chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA)—pronounced “Salsa”. Both address software procurement and security. 

 

Now, here’s the slightly more in-depth version: 

 

  • NIST. The organisation wants more ‘rigorous and predictable’ ways to secure critical software. They suggest that firms use vulnerability disclosure programmes (VDP) and software bills of materials (SBOM), consider simplifying their software and give at least one developer per project security training.
  • Google. The company thinks that SLSA will encompass the source-build-publish software workflow. Essentially, the four-level framework helps businesses make informed choices about the security of the software they use, with SLSA 4 representing an ideal end state. 

 

If this all sounds very abstract, consider the recent SolarWinds attack. The attacker compromised the build platform, installed an implant, and injected malicious behaviour during each build. According to Google, higher SLSA levels would have required stronger security controls for the build platform, making it more difficult for the attacker to succeed. 

 

How Do The Proposals Differ? 

As Brian Fox, the co-founder and CTO at Sonatype, sees it, NIST and Google have created proposals that complement each other. ‘The NIST [version] is focused on defining minimum requirements for software sold to the government’, he explained, while Google ‘goes [further] and proposes a specific model for scoring the supply chain. NIST is currently focused on the “what”. Google, along with other industry leaders, is grappling with the “how”’. 

 

Share article