Apply for OpenSSF Passing badge

[maoo]

FINOS is helping its hosted projects to establish a more secure approach to Open Source software development, by rolling out security scanning tools and by teaming up with LF initiatives like the OpenSSF Best Practices badge

We are aiming to publish an OpenSSF badge for each of the most strategic FINOS projects, and given that CFI is one of them, if would be great if someone from the CFI team could fill in the self assessment form on https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/ to get the Passing badge, and submit a Pull Request to publish it into the README.md of this repository.

Of course the FINOS team is always available to provide support, if and when needed; feel free to comment this issue if some question is unclear or need support.

[eddie-knight]

Currently working through confirming the items on the "passing" checklist:

Basics

Basic project website content

• [x] The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good]
• [x] The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. [interact]
• [x] The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) {Met URL} [contribution]
• [x] The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). {Met URL} [contribution_requirements]

FLOSS license

• [x] The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). [floss_license_osi]
• [x] The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. {Met URL} [license_location]

Documentation

• [x] The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. {N/A justification} [documentation_basics]
• [x] The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. {N/A justification} [documentation_interface]

Other

• [x] The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https]
• [x] The project MUST have one or more mechanisms for discussion (including proposed changes and issues) that are searchable, allow messages and topics to be addressed by URL, enable new people to participate in some of the discussions, and do not require client-side installation of proprietary software. [discussion]
• [x] The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english]
• [x] The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]

Change Control

• [x] Public version-controlled source repository
• [x] The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]
• [x] The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [repo_track]
• [x] To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]

Unique version numbering

• [ ] The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]
• [ ] It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver]
• [ ] It is SUGGESTED that projects identify each release within their version control system. For example, it is SUGGESTED that those using git identify each release using git tags. [version_tags]

Release notes

• [ ] The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". {N/A justification} {Met URL} [release_notes]
• [ ] The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. {N/A justification} [release_notes_vulns]

Reporting

Bug-reporting process

• [x] The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). {Met URL} [report_process]
• [x] The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. [report_tracker]
• [x] The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. [report_responses]
• [x] The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]
• [x] The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. {Met URL} [report_archive]

Vulnerability report process

• [x] The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. {Met URL} [vulnerability_report_process]
• [x] If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. {N/A allowed} {Met URL} [vulnerability_report_private]
• [x] The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. {N/A allowed} [vulnerability_report_response]

Quality

• [x] Working build system
• [x] If the software produced by the project requires building for use, the project MUST provide a working build system that can automatically rebuild the software from source code. {N/A allowed} [build]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. {N/A allowed} [build_common_tools]
• [x] The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. {N/A allowed} [build_floss_tools]

Automated test suite

• [x] The project MUST use at least one automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS (this test suite may be maintained as a separate FLOSS project). The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite(s) (e.g., via a continuous integration (CI) script or via documentation in files such as BUILD.md, README.md, or CONTRIBUTING.md). [test]
• [x] A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. [test_invocation]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. [test_most]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that the project implement continuous integration (where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result). [test_continuous_integration]

New functionality testing

• [x] The project MUST have a general policy (formal or not) that as major new functionality is added to the software produced by the project, tests of that functionality should be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy]
• [x] The project MUST have evidence that the test_policy for adding tests has been adhered to in the most recent major changes to the software produced by the project. [tests_are_added]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. [tests_documented_added]

Warning flags

• [x] The project MUST enable one or more compiler warning flags, a "safe" language mode, or use a separate "linter" tool to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. {N/A allowed} [warnings]
• [x] The project MUST address warnings. {N/A allowed} [warnings_fixed]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. {N/A allowed} [warnings_strict]

Security

Secure development knowledge

• [x] The project MUST have at least one primary developer who knows how to design secure software. (See ‘details’ for the exact requirements.) [know_secure_design]
• [x] At least one of the project's primary developers MUST know of common kinds of errors that lead to vulnerabilities in this kind of software, as well as at least one method to counter or mitigate each of them. [know_common_errors]
• [x] Use basic good cryptographic practices
• [x] The software produced by the project MUST use, by default, only cryptographic protocols and algorithms that are publicly published and reviewed by experts (if cryptographic protocols and algorithms are used). {N/A allowed} [crypto_published]
• [x] If the software produced by the project is an application or library, and its primary purpose is not to implement cryptography, then it SHOULD only call on software specifically designed to implement cryptographic functions; it SHOULD NOT re-implement its own. {N/A allowed} [crypto_call]
• [x] All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. {N/A allowed} [crypto_floss]
• [x] The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST use default keylengths that at least meet the NIST minimum requirements through the year 2030 (as stated in 2012). It MUST be possible to configure the software so that smaller keylengths are completely disabled. {N/A allowed} [crypto_keylength]
• [x] The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST NOT depend on broken cryptographic algorithms (e.g., MD4, MD5, single DES, RC4, Dual_EC_DRBG), or use cipher modes that are inappropriate to the context, unless they are necessary to implement an interoperable protocol (where the protocol implemented is the most recent version of that standard broadly supported by the network ecosystem, that ecosystem requires the use of such an algorithm or mode, and that ecosystem does not offer any more secure alternative). The documentation MUST describe any relevant security risks and any known mitigations if these broken algorithms or modes are necessary for an interoperable protocol. {N/A allowed} [crypto_working]
• [x] The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD NOT depend on cryptographic algorithms or modes with known serious weaknesses (e.g., the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm or the CBC mode in SSH). {N/A allowed} [crypto_weaknesses]
• [x] The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD implement perfect forward secrecy for key agreement protocols so a session key derived from a set of long-term keys cannot be compromised if one of the long-term keys is compromised in the future. {N/A allowed} [crypto_pfs]
• [x] If the software produced by the project causes the storing of passwords for authentication of external users, the passwords MUST be stored as iterated hashes with a per-user salt by using a key stretching (iterated) algorithm (e.g., Argon2id, Bcrypt, Scrypt, or PBKDF2). See also OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet). {N/A allowed} [crypto_password_storage]
• [x] The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST generate all cryptographic keys and nonces using a cryptographically secure random number generator, and MUST NOT do so using generators that are cryptographically insecure. {N/A allowed} [crypto_random]
• [x] Secured delivery against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks
• [x] The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable. [delivery_mitm]
• [x] A cryptographic hash (e.g., a sha1sum) MUST NOT be retrieved over http and used without checking for a cryptographic signature. [delivery_unsigned]

Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed

• [x] There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]
• [x] Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. [vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]

Other security issues

• [x] The public repositories MUST NOT leak a valid private credential (e.g., a working password or private key) that is intended to limit public access. [no_leaked_credentials]

Analysis

Static code analysis

• [x] At least one static code analysis tool (beyond compiler warnings and "safe" language modes) MUST be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that implements this criterion in the selected language. {N/A justification} {Met justification} [static_analysis]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that at least one of the static analysis tools used for the static_analysis criterion include rules or approaches to look for common vulnerabilities in the analyzed language or environment. {N/A allowed} [static_analysis_common_vulnerabilities]
• [x] All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. {N/A allowed} [static_analysis_fixed]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. {N/A allowed} [static_analysis_often]

Dynamic code analysis

• [x] It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release. [dynamic_analysis]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that if the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). {N/A allowed} [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that the project use a configuration for at least some dynamic analysis (such as testing or fuzzing) which enables many assertions. In many cases these assertions should not be enabled in production builds. [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]
• [x] All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. {N/A allowed} [dynamic_analysis_fixed]

[eddie-knight]

A strategy has not yet been implemented for unique version numbering:

The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users.

[eddie-knight]

Releases are not yet part of the CFI lifecycle, though that could easily be established with a bit of planning

[eddie-knight]

Until we finish migrating the structure to a module-based structure (#239) we will not be able to finish the following reuirement:

The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite

[mcleo-d]

Hey @eddie-knight 👋🏻

Thanks for picking this up. I have added to the kanban in progress column.

Please use #256 to call for help if needed.

James.

[eddie-knight]

Working with Bob today to identify action items necessary to complete the checklist above.

The next comment from Bob should contain our notes and suggested next steps, which we may convert into independent issues or otherwise just start making PRs against.

[thinkl33t]

CFI OpenSSF Notes

Unique version numbering

• The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]
  • We need to do this for both CFI main and CFI modules.
  • Ideally modules will be marked as being compliant to a 'main' version.
  • CFI Modules will need to be semver released as they are iterated upon, and then linked to a calver CFI release.

workflow

1. Create documentation with all the necessary info related to relases
2. Automate release cut on the first of the month for CFI main (calver)
3. Automate a feedback solicitation issue on the 20th of the month to alert community of upcoming release

Release notes

• The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". {N/A justification} {Met URL} [release_notes]
  • Release action will look for a section of the PR description and put the contents of that section into the release notes with a link to the PR
  • Pull requests will be automatically blocked from merging if they do not have this section
• The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. {N/A justification} [release_notes_vulns]
  • If a CVE section is found in the PR description, it will be appended to the release notes for that merge

Automated test suite

• The project MUST use at least one automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS (this test suite may be maintained as a separate FLOSS project). The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite(s) (e.g., via a continuous integration (CI) script or via documentation in files such as BUILD.md, README.md, or CONTRIBUTING.md). [test]
  • we're missing docs here i think, though our existing CI may count? ("this says show")

Warning flags

• The project MUST address warnings. {N/A allowed} [warnings_fixed]
  • document in contributing.md "if any pre-merge tool issues a warning it must be addressed before merge"
• It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. {N/A allowed} [warnings_strict]
  • find out if we can turn on super-strict mode on our linters

Security

Secure development knowledge

• [ ] The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST use default keylengths that at least meet the NIST minimum requirements through the year 2030 (as stated in 2012). It MUST be possible to configure the software so that smaller keylengths are completely disabled. {N/A allowed} [crypto_keylength]
  • add docs:
    • "Unless a more strict implementation is required by a compliance definition, all contributions must produce cryptographic keys that meet the requirements set by NIST (as stated in 2012)."

Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed

• [x] There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]
• [x] Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. [vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]
  • add policy
  • add CVE scanning (Lift or similar)

Analysis

Static code analysis

• [x] All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. {N/A allowed} [static_analysis_fixed]
  • Make sure this is covered under same policy as CVEs
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. {N/A allowed} [static_analysis_often]
  • Make sure above tooling is part of CI

Dynamic code analysis

• [x] It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release. [dynamic_analysis]
  • Probr covers this
• [x] It is SUGGESTED that if the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). {N/A allowed} [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]
  • n/a

---

Proposed docs changes are below

---

Releases - Versioning and Cadance

Releases of CFI and its modules will include

• An automatically generated change log, taken from the included PRs since the last release.
  • This will include a descriptive paragraph from the PR, alongside a link to the PR.
• A feed of any new and closed CVEs, generated in a similar way.

CFI 'Definition' Repo

CFI definition releases will be made in a Calendar Versioning (calver) fashion, in the format YYYY.mm-pointver. There will be a monthly -0 release, automatically released on the first of the month.

It is expected that if any critical issues are found in a monthly release, a new point release will be made within the month, but functionality changes will not be released until the next month's release.

CFI IAC Modules

As a CFI module will not necessarily be compliant to a newly-released CFI documentation version, we intend not to use calver for these to reduce confusion. IAC Modules will be released using a semver versioning system, and release cadance will be based on contributions.

PR Changes

To automate the changelog generation, all Pull Requests will need a new section, which includes a short single-paragraph description of what the PR changes. This section being absent or unreadable will block merges, both automatically through github actions, and manually if a maintainer thinks it needs rewriting.

[mcleo-d]

Request from @TheJuanAndOnly99

Hi @eddie-knight ,

I see there is a lot of progress on the OpenSSF badge issue! I think you are ready to submit it here and get a progress score (screenshot below of what it looks like).

We don't need all the answers yet and getting it submitted would let us know how far we are from a "passing" badge. What do you think?

Thanks,

Juan

[eddie-knight]

Progress on the badge application can be seen by org and repo maintainers:

https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/6557/edit#changecontrol

[mcleo-d]

@eddie-knight 👋🏻

I believe this item can be submitted to OpenSSF now.

@TheJuanAndOnly99 to confirm.

James.

[eddie-knight]

Submitted with the release and version items marked as unmet/pending

[eddie-knight]

Closing this as the initial premise "Apply for badge" has been met, and the badge has been added to the README.

A follow-up task will need to be created when we are ready to do additional work on the badge.