BadgeApp

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 1 is gold Here is how to embed it:

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

        

 Basics 13/13 ●

  • Identification

    BadgeApp is the web application that allows developers to provide information about their project and (hopefully) get an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Best Practices badge. This project was originally known as the Core Infrastructure Initiative (CII) best practices badge project.

    The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) is managed by The Linux Foundation. The OpenSSF Best Practices badge online application (aka the BadgeApp) enables developers to quickly determine whether they are following best practices and to receive a badge they can display on GitHub and other locations. The application and its criteria are an open source project to which developers can contribute.

    You can see the program running, and use it to try to get a badge, by visiting: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/

    The BadgeApp is written in Ruby on Rails and Javascript.

    See the development site on GitHub for more about how we secure this application.

    Note that the BadgeApp gets its own badge!

    What programming language(s) are used to implement the project?

  • Basic project website content


    Enough for a badge!

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

    https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge


    Enough for a badge!

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

    https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) [contribution]

    https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md


  • FLOSS license

    What license(s) is the project released under?


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The MIT license is widely acknowledged as being OSS. The license is at https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/LICENSE The MIT license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

    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).


    Enough for a badge!

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

    It's in the LICENSE file in the top level directory. See: https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/LICENSE


  • Documentation


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The directory "doc" contains most documentation. Installation information is at https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/tree/master/doc/INSTALL.md and other materials are at https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/tree/master/doc/


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Its interface is defined here: https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/doc/implementation.md#interface


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project website and repo use GitHub, which supports HTTPS using TLS. There's no separate download URL (use git to download from the repo).


    Enough for a badge!

    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 issue tracker and pull requests support discussion


    Enough for a badge!

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

    All documentation is in English, and the project accepts bug reports and comments in English.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]


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



We hope to see many other projects get their badge. Please start!

Note that this badge entry is released under at least the Creative Commons Attribution version 3.0 or later license (CC-BY-3.0+).

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]

    It uses git, URL is https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [repo_track]

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


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Interim versions are put on git, not just final versions.


    Enough for a badge!

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

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


  • Unique version numbering


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The primary single user uses git commit records to identify releases.


    Barely enough for a badge.

    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]

    BadgeApp undergoes continuous integration and is then deployed to a single site, https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/. We used Semantic Versioning for a while, but SemVer is a poor fit for this kind of situation, and we eventually gave up the practice. Every version continues to have a unique version identifier: the git commit id.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Full releases are tagged using 'git tag'.


  • Release notes


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    CHANGELOG file is in top directory, see: https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    We intend to do that, though we don't know of any for-certain publicly known vulnerabilities.

    Our release notes do document that commit fdb83380 on 2015-11-26 updated gem nokogiri from 1.6.6.2 to 1.6.6.4 due to CVE-2015-1819. It's not clear if our application was actually vulnerable; it was easier to simply upgrade. In any case, we upgraded immediately, and this is documented in our release notes.


  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Yes, either GitHub issue tracker or mailing list. See: https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/README.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Yes, GitHub issue tracker.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Yes. Not many have been submitted so far, but we've responded.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project has been responding to most enhancement requests.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. (URL required) [report_archive]

    Yes, via GitHub isue tracker: https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/issues


  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

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

    https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    No external reports so far, so this is vacuously true.


  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    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. [build]

    The software is written using Ruby and Javascript, and their implementations run directly on the source code.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. [build_common_tools]

    Note that a Gemfile.lock file and Rake tasks are provided to enable others to quickly recreate a development environment.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. [build_floss_tools]

  • Automated test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Yes, it includes a test suite based on minitest (the test framework that comes with Rails).


    Enough for a badge!

    A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. [test_invocation]

    Yes. "rake test" invokes the automated test suite. The default "rake" command includes "rake test". This is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Met. Currently coverage of the ruby code is over 90%, and most of the code is in Ruby.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Code is frequently integrated back into GitHub; CircleCI and several other tools are then run on the result to determine if there's a problem. If a problem is found, the tools provide feedback via GitHub. For more information, see the BadgeApp's status on CircleCI.


  • New functionality testing


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Yes. The CONTRIBUTING file at https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md says, "When adding or changing functionality, please include new tests for them as part of your contribution". Also, the project home page shows the test coverage, which encourages adding tests as new functionality is added.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Tests are added as new functionality is added.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Yes. The CONTRIBUTING file at https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md says, "When adding or changing functionality, please include new tests for them as part of your contribution".


  • Warning flags


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    The set of tools used for examining code quality are listed in CONTRIBUTING.md.

    The project uses rubocop and rails_best_practices to check for code quality errors in Ruby code; eslint is used to look for problems in Javascript. The markdown documentation is scanned with markdownlink.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]

    In general warnings are addressed. In some cases warnings are disabled for specific cases.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The settings for the warning tools are generally fairly strict.


  • Secure development knowledge


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    David A. Wheeler, lead developer, literally wrote the code on how to design secure software: http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    For a discussion of security requirements, common types of security vulnerabilities, and how this application counters those common kinds of vulnerabilities, see: https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/doc/security.md


  • Use basic good cryptographic practices

    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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    The software uses bcrypt to store salted hashed iterated passwords, and https+standard crypto protocols to communicate with users.


    Enough for a badge!

    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. [crypto_call]

    Uses 'bcrypt' gem for bcrypt, and https implementation built into its web server.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    All required functionality is implemented using FLOSS, including cryptography.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Note: This application uses bcrypt, which uses 128-bit salt and produces 184 bits as a salted encrypted iterated hash. This is less than 224 bits, but that's not really what the 224 bits of hash are for. This probably needs clarification in the criteria; see https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/issues/153


    Enough for a badge!

    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 only cryptographic algorithm directly used by the program is bcrypt, which is not broken.


    Enough for a badge!

    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 only cryptography used directly by this application is bcrypt (used for storing passwords as salted iterated hashes). At the time of this writing, no serious breaks are known in bcrypt. The application also depends on the web server's https configuration, but that is out of scope for this code.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Nothing in the code inhibits or prevents the use of PFS; that is a property of the website's web server.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Bcrypt used for storing local passwords.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    The nonce for the salt is created by the bcrypt gem; its engine.rb file shows that it uses OpenSSL to get cryptographically random data for the salt (on Java it would use SecureRandom, which is still fine, but that is not the default configuration). Other nonces are part of the https implementation, which are implemented by the web server (not this application).


  • Secured delivery against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Uses https.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Does not make this mistake.


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    No such vulnerabilities at this time.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    No such vulnerabilities at this time.


  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    No valid private credentials are leaked. There is a .env file, but it only includes stub data for testing, not the live credentials.


  • Static code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    As noted in https://github.com/linuxfoundation/cii-best-practices-badge/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md, Brakeman, Rubocop, and rails_best_practices are used to analyze the Ruby code. Brakeman is specifically designed to analyze Ruby on Rails code. The Javascript client-side code is analyzed with ESLint, using over 100 rules.

    These analysis tools are used as part of the default 'rake' process used in local development, as well as the "pronto" process run on the continuous integration server running on CircleCI.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Brakeman specifically looks for common vulnerabilities in Ruby on Rails applications.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    This is vacuously true, since we've had no reports of vulnerabilities that apply to a deployed system.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    All commits to GitHub are run through CircleCI, which performs a number of static analysis checks (Brakeman, Rubocop, etc.).


  • Dynamic code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Analyzed with OWASP ZAP by Emily Ratliff


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Application written using Ruby and Javascript, not C/C++


    Barely enough for a badge.

    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]

    Instead of embedding run-time assertions, there are many external tests with assertions that are checked during automated testing.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    A few minor issues were found by OWASP ZAP during development; these have already been fixed.



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 David A. Wheeler and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: David A. Wheeler.
Entry created on 2015-10-23 22:02:10 UTC, last updated on 2025-01-03 20:27:50 UTC. Last lost passing badge on 2023-09-19 06:10:11 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2023-09-19 06:10:30 UTC.

Back