Technical OpenSSF Badge

hairyhum commented 8 months ago

In order to request OpenSSF badge on the repo we need to fulfill the following requirements: https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/criteria/0

Expanding here for better tracking:

Basics

[x] The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (kanister.io)
[x] The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. there's a link to slack and github on the website
[x] The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENT we could add a direct link to CONTRIBUTING.MD @mlavi
[x] The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. (Apache 2.0)
[x] The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository (https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/blob/master/LICENSE)
[x] The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. (docs.kanister.io) POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENT add a general link to docs.kanister.io in README and the website @mlavi
[x] The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. (docs.kanister.io, https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/kanisterio/kanister) POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENT link to API docs in the kanister docs @mlavi
[x] The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS
[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 (https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/discussions, https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/issues, slack #kanisterio)
[x] The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English.
[x] The project MUST be maintained

Change control

[x] The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL (https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister)
[x] The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made.
[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
[x] It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository.
[x] The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users
[x] 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 (currently using loose SemVer as there is no strict requirements for version number)
[x] 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
[ ] 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) TODO: currently using git log, switching to reno notes in future releases https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/pull/2604 https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/pull/2772 @hairyhum
[ ] 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. TODO: Discuss if there's anything to do about tracking and reporting CVEs. Reno provides a format with security: field in the release notes. @mlavi @hairyhum

Reporting

[x] The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/issues)
[x] The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues
[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 We use triage tag for new issues. POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENT post a comment to issues when removing triage tag for more clarity @mlavi @hairyhum @viveksinghggits @pavannd1
[x] The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive).
[x] The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching.
[ ] The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. TODO: discuss how to address that. Do we use github issues? @mlavi @hairyhum @viveksinghggits @pavannd1
[x] If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept 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. Currently synced in 2-weeks periods during kanister community meeting.

Quality

[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 (https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/blob/master/BUILD.md)
[x] It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software
[x] The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools
[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). POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENT move some of the privately run test suites (e.g. e2e tests for example blueprints) to github, document how to run them @hairyhum @viveksinghggits @PrasadG193 @pavannd1
[x] A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language
[ ] It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality TODO: check coverage reports @hairyhum
[x] It is SUGGESTED that the project implement continuous integration
[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 (CONTRIBUTING.MD)
[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 (CONTRIBUTING.MD, CODE_REVIEW.md, github actions)
[x] It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals.
[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 (GHA lint step)
[x] The project MUST address warnings.
[x] It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical.

Security

TODO: review the unchecked items @psilva-veeam @mlavi

[x] The project MUST have at least one primary developer who knows how to design secure software
[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
[ ] 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)
[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.
[ ] 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
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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)
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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
[ ] The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable
[ ] A cryptographic hash (e.g., a sha1sum) MUST NOT be retrieved over http and used without checking for a cryptographic signature
[ ] There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. (upstream dependencies are addressed by dependabot) TODO: we can use github/snyk code scanner to detect vulnerabilities (does govulncheck address that?) @pavannd1 @psilva-veeam TODO: discuss vulnerability tracking @pavannd1 @mlavi
[ ] 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 TODO: double check that

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. (golangci-lint)
[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 TODO: does govulncheck address that? @psilva-veeam
[x] All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed
[x] It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily (done in PR GHA)
[ ] It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release
[ ] 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
[ ] All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed

julio-lopez commented 8 months ago

Reladed OpenSSF scorecard and link to the report

This is the workflow used for the badge

https://github.com/kanisterio/kanister/blob/master/.github/workflows/ossf-scorecard.yml

hairyhum commented 8 months ago

https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/8699

viveksinghggits commented 8 months ago

The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. TODO: discuss how to address that. Do we use github issues?

What are the acceptable ways of doing this? If github issues with a specific label are acceptable ways of doing that I think it's a good idea. I think the workflow that we have to figure out vuln. in our images can be improved to raise another issue with specific label etc.

hairyhum commented 8 months ago

What are the acceptable ways of doing this? If github issues with a specific label are acceptable ways of doing that I think it's a good idea. I think the workflow that we have to figure out vuln. in our images can be improved to raise another issue with specific label etc.

Detailed requirement looks like that:

Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. Projects on GitLab SHOULD consider using its ability for privately reporting a vulnerability. Projects MAY identify a mailing address on https://PROJECTSITE/security, often in the form security@example.org. This vulnerability reporting process MAY be the same as its bug reporting process. Vulnerability reports MAY always be public, but many projects have a private vulnerability reporting mechanism.

hairyhum commented 5 months ago

The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site.

@mlavi can we add some link to SECURITY.md on the website?

kanisterio / kanister