Runtime Bill of Materials (RBOMs®) operate as a dynamic, execution-aware refinement of the Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). SBOMs record all software artifacts associated with a build, whereas RBOMs® capture only the components that are actually executed or loaded into memory at runtime. Thinking about how an RBOM improves compliance requires analyzing large codebases, identifying unused components, isolating what is truly essential, and reducing SBOM elements that unnecessarily expand the attack surface.
‍

One of the best ways to think about RBOM® is in terms of risk reduction. In many DevSecOps pipelines, teams believe security has been fully integrated once scanning is enabled and builds are passing. However, if a scanner is configured too permissively or lacks meaningful baselining, there may be no effective comparison between versions or visibility into what truly changed. Simply comparing one build to the next does not always provide actionable insight. RBOM® goes further by establishing a runtime baseline and evaluating which libraries, binaries, dependencies, and other code elements are actually executed. This approach ensures that organizations do not spend time managing vulnerabilities in code their product does not use.
‍

FedRAMP, under CM-8 guidance, requires a complete and up-to-date inventory of all system components. This process often begins with an SBOM. However, just because you can include every possible item does not mean you should. In creating the RBOM®, the first step is analyzing all components within the codebase. Comparing the SBOM to the RBOM® brings clarity to what is actually required versus what merely exists.
‍

The rise of open-source usage, AI-assisted development, and rapid coding practices has significantly expanded dependency trees. Many projects include just-in-case libraries that are never used at runtime. RBOM® comparison identifies unused components within the overall package, uncovering what might otherwise take engineers hundreds of hours to manually analyze and resolve.
‍

The next RBOM® step highlights unused components for further evaluation and potential removal. These elements are flagged for deeper analysis within the platform. For example, one Python graphics library used by a bank had over 3,200 packages installed, yet only 200 were actually used at runtime. This does not imply that the remaining packages were malicious or without value, only that they were not used in that deployment. Many production environments lack a systematic way to surface these inactive components.
‍

Highlighting which packages are actually used can significantly reduce security vulnerabilities. In this case, eliminating unused packages reduced Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with dormant code while shrinking the overall attack surface. Beyond lowering security risk, this reduction also improved build times and increased efficiency within production pipelines.
‍

RBOM® supports a specific approach for eliminating excess SBOM components. This approach removes unused code (such as the 3,000 dormant Python packages) to streamline the artifact down to essential runtime components. Ultimately, the RBOM® should closely align with the final SBOM. This means no explaining discrepancies to auditors, no securing unused code, and no engineering time wasted on non-essential remediation efforts.
‍

Overall, RBOM® is an efficient tool for evaluating the SBOM at runtime, ensuring that everything listed in the inventory is actually being used. If your platform or product uses 80% of its footprint for unused components, and 95% of your vulnerabilities reside there, it may be time to deploy an RBOM®. Break down large codebases, identify unused components, isolate essential runtime elements, and eliminate unnecessary vulnerabilities. If you want to dramatically reduce CVEs and strengthen your compliance posture, RapidFort does this.