DH-UptimeKuma-Status-Bot

Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) best practices badge.

If this is your project, please show your badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 10471 is in_progress Here is how to embed it:

These are the Passing level criteria. You can also view the Silver or Gold level criteria.

        

 Basics 11/13

  • Identification

    Introducing DayHosting Bot a versatile Discord bot equipped with a web interface. This bot serves as a default multipurpose tool capable of performing various functions. Among its capabilities it regularly checks the status of servers using the Uptime Kuma API.

    What programming language(s) are used to implement the project?
  • Basic project website content


    The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good]

    Le fichier README.md du dépôt GitHub fournit une description claire du bot, expliquant qu'il se connecte au serveur Uptime Kuma, récupère l'état de tous les serveurs et envoie un message intégré dans un canal Discord avec l'état de chaque serveur. Cette information est mise à jour toutes les 60 secondes pour garantir des données précises et à jour.



    The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. [interact]

    Le dépôt GitHub permet aux utilisateurs de cloner ou de forker le projet. Les utilisateurs peuvent également soumettre des problèmes (issues) ou des demandes de tirage (pull requests) pour contribuer au projet.



    La información sobre cómo contribuir DEBE explicar el proceso de contribución (por ejemplo, ¿se utilizan "pull requests" en el proyecto?) (URL required) [contribution]

    Projects on GitHub by default use issues and pull requests, as encouraged by documentation such as https://guides.github.com/activities/contributing-to-open-source/.



    The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). (URL required) [contribution_requirements]

    Aucune directive de contribution spécifique ou norme de codage n'est mentionnée dans le dépôt.


  • FLOSS license

    What license(s) is the project released under?



    The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license]

    The MIT license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).



    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]

    The MIT license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).



    The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. (URL required) [license_location]

    Non-trivial license location file in repository: https://github.com/DayHosting-fr/DH-UptimeKuma-Status-Bot/blob/main/LICENSE.


  • Documentation


    The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. [documentation_basics]

    // No appropriate folder found for documentation basics.



    The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. [documentation_interface]

    Aucune documentation de référence spécifique n'est disponible dans le dépôt.


  • Other


    The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https]

    Given only https: URLs.



    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]

    GitHub supports discussions on issues and pull requests.



    The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english]

    La documentation et les discussions sur GitHub sont en anglais, permettant une participation internationale.



    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]

    Le dépôt montre une activité récente avec des commits et des mises à jour régulières.



(Advanced) What other users have additional rights to edit this badge entry? Currently: []



  • Repositorio público para el control de versiones de código fuente


    El proyecto DEBE tener un repositorio público para el control de versiones de código fuente que sea legible públicamente y tenga URL. [repo_public]

    Repository on GitHub, which provides public git repositories with URLs.



    El repositorio fuente del proyecto DEBE rastrear qué cambios se realizaron, quién realizó los cambios y cuándo se realizaron los cambios. [repo_track]

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git can track the changes, who made them, and when they were made.



    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]

    The repository doesn't explicitly mention interim versions, and there are no dedicated pre-release or beta tags noted in the project.



    It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git is distributed.


  • Numeración única de versión


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

    No versioning scheme (like version numbers or tags) is visible in the repository.



    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]

    No clear versioning format is implemented, and no tags indicate Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer).



    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]

    No tags are found in the repository for release identification.


  • Notas de lanzamiento


    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". (URL required) [release_notes]

    // No release notes file found.



    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. [release_notes_vulns]

    The project does not have release notes, and there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities identified at the time of review.


  • Bug-reporting process


    The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). (URL required) [report_process]

    There is no clear indication that the project provides a formal bug reporting process such as an issue tracker or a mailing list.



    The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. [report_tracker]

    The project does not appear to have an issue tracker to track reported bugs or feature requests.



    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]

    There is no evidence that the project acknowledges bug reports within a certain timeframe.



    The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]

    There is no indication that enhancement requests are actively tracked or responded to.



    El proyecto DEBE tener un archivo públicamente disponible para informes y respuestas para búsquedas posteriores. (URL required) [report_archive]

    The project does not appear to have an archive for bug reports and responses, which would make it difficult for users to search for previous issues.


  • Proceso de informe de vulnerabilidad


    The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_process]

    There is no publicly available process for reporting vulnerabilities.



    If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_private]

    There is no indication of a process for private vulnerability reports, and the details on how to send confidential information are absent.



    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. [vulnerability_report_response]

    There is no clear information about the response time for vulnerability reports, making it impossible to determine if it meets the 14-day criterion.


  • Working build system


    Si el software generado por el proyecto requiere ser construido para su uso, el proyecto DEBE proporcionar un sistema de compilación que pueda satisfactoriamente reconstruir automáticamente el software a partir del código fuente. [build]

    No information is provided about the existence of a build system for the software. Without a working build system, users cannot easily rebuild the software from source code.



    Se SUGIERE que se utilicen herramientas comunes para construir el software. [build_common_tools]

    There is no information indicating whether common tools are used for building the software, such as make, cmake, or others.



    El proyecto DEBERÍA ser construible usando solo herramientas FLOSS. [build_floss_tools]

    There is no indication that the project uses only Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) tools for building.


  • 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]

    There is no mention of an automated test suite, nor any instructions on how to run such a suite.



    Un conjunto de pruebas DEBERÍA ser invocable de forma estándar para ese lenguaje. [test_invocation]

    The project does not appear to have a standardized way to invoke tests.



    It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. [test_most]

    There is no indication of the breadth or completeness of the test suite coverage.



    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]

    There is no indication of continuous integration being used to test the project.


  • New functionality testing


    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]

    There is no mention of a policy for adding tests as new functionality is introduced.



    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]

    No evidence exists that tests are being added for major changes to the project.



    It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. [tests_documented_added]

    No documentation is provided regarding the test policy or its inclusion in change proposals.


  • Banderas de advertencia


    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. [warnings]

    There is no information indicating that any compiler warning flags or linter tools are used to ensure code quality.



    El proyecto DEBE abordar las advertencias. [warnings_fixed]

    It is unclear whether warnings are addressed in the project, as there is no mention of compiler flags or linter use.



    It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. [warnings_strict]

    There is no information about the project's stance on warning levels or its effort to be strict with them.


  • Conocimiento de desarrollo seguro


    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]


    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]

  • Use buenas prácticas criptográficas

    Note that some software does not need to use cryptographic mechanisms. If your project produces software that (1) includes, activates, or enables encryption functionality, and (2) might be released from the United States (US) to outside the US or to a non-US-citizen, you may be legally required to take a few extra steps. Typically this just involves sending an email. For more information, see the encryption section of Understanding Open Source Technology & US Export Controls.

    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). [crypto_published]


    Si el software producido por el proyecto es una aplicación o una librería, y su propósito principal no es implementar criptografía, entonces DEBE SOLAMENTE invocar un software específicamente diseñado para implementar funciones criptográficas; NO DEBERÍA volver a implementar el suyo. [crypto_call]


    All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. [crypto_floss]


    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. [crypto_keylength]


    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. [crypto_working]


    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). [crypto_weaknesses]


    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. [crypto_pfs]


    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. [crypto_password_storage]


    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. [crypto_random]

  • Entrega garantizada contra ataques de hombre en el medio (MITM)


    The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable. [delivery_mitm]


    A cryptographic hash (e.g., a sha1sum) MUST NOT be retrieved over http and used without checking for a cryptographic signature. [delivery_unsigned]

  • Vulnerabilidades públicamente conocidas corregidas


    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]


    Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. [vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]

    Le projet est en développement actif et les vulnérabilités critiques sont suivies et corrigées dans les mises à jour régulières. Cependant, en raison de la taille de l'équipe et de la priorité donnée aux autres fonctionnalités, certaines vulnérabilités peuvent prendre plus de temps à être corrigées, mais il existe un suivi pour les résoudre dès que possible.


  • Otros problemas de seguridad


    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]

  • Análisis estático de código


    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. [static_analysis]

    Il n'y a actuellement aucune preuve que des outils d'analyse statique de code aient été appliqués avant les versions majeures de production du logiciel. Le projet n'inclut pas d'outils d'analyse statique comme partie intégrante du processus de développement.



    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. [static_analysis_common_vulnerabilities]

    Le projet n'indique pas l'utilisation d'outils d'analyse statique spécifiquement configurés pour détecter les vulnérabilités communes du langage ou de l'environnement, ce qui suggère un manque de cette pratique dans le cycle de développement.



    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [static_analysis_fixed]

    Puisqu'aucun outil d'analyse statique n'est actuellement utilisé, aucune politique de correction rapide des vulnérabilités n'est en place suite à l'analyse statique du code.



    It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. [static_analysis_often]

    Le projet ne semble pas appliquer l'analyse statique sur chaque commit ou régulièrement (par exemple, quotidiennement), ce qui pourrait aider à détecter tôt les vulnérabilités dans le code.


  • Dynamic code analysis


    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]

    Le projet ne semble pas avoir mis en place d'outils d'analyse dynamique pour les versions majeures de production. Il n'est pas indiqué si des tests de sécurité dynamique sont effectués avant les sorties.



    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). [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]

    Le projet ne semble pas inclure de logiciel écrit dans des langages non sécurisés en mémoire (comme C ou C++), donc cette exigence ne s'applique pas.



    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]

    Il n'est pas précisé si des assertions sont activées pour l'analyse dynamique. Cette exigence serait applicable si des outils d'analyse dynamique étaient utilisés, ce qui n'est pas le cas pour le moment.



    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [dynamic_analysis_fixed]

    Puisque l'analyse dynamique n'est pas utilisée, il n'y a aucune politique de correction des vulnérabilités exploitées découvertes via cette analyse.



This data is available under the Community Data License Agreement – Permissive, Version 2.0 (CDLA-Permissive-2.0). This means that a Data Recipient may share the Data, with or without modifications, so long as the Data Recipient makes available the text of this agreement with the shared Data. Please credit Abrantes Nicolas and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Abrantes Nicolas.
Entry created on 2025-04-23 07:07:07 UTC, last updated on 2025-04-23 07:21:25 UTC.

Back