slsa-github-generator

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 6503 is passing 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

    Language-agnostic SLSA provenance generation for Github Actions

    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]

    A project description is available as a README.

    Full website: #892



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

    The repository contains a contributing guide which describes how to contribute and provide feedback.



    The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (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 repository contains a contributing guide which describes how to contribute and provide feedback.



    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]

    The repository contains a contributing guide which describes the requirements for acceptable contributions.


  • FLOSS license

    What license(s) is the project released under?



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

    The Apache-2.0 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 Apache-2.0 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/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/blob/main/LICENSE.


  • Documentation


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

    Documentation is located in each builder's directory and is linked via the top level README.md.



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


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

    The repository and all downloads are hosted on GitHub which only uses HTTPS.



    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]


    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]


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



  • Public version-controlled source repository


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

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



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

    Interim versions can be identified and reference via git commit digest.



    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.


  • Unique version numbering


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

    Releases are unique and identified by semver. https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/releases



    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]

    Each release is identified by a git tag. https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/releases


  • 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". (URL required) [release_notes]

    Detailed release notes are provided on each GitHub release and include a human-readable summary of changes.

    https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/releases



    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]
  • Working build system


    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]

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

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

    The project is meant for use by OSS projects on GitHub. Most OSS projects use GitHub for hosting, however GitHub itself is not FLOSS.


  • 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]

    A unit test suite that utilizes the Go testing package is provided. https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator#unit-tests



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

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

    We believe that most functionality is covered by the test suite and make and effort to add tests to cover new features per our testing policy.

    However, we currently do not have coverage metrics that we publish to back that. Most tests are e2e tests for GitHub Actions workflows and it is difficult to get coverage metrics for this.

    An end-to-end test suite is provided in the example-package repository.



    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]

    Extensive pre-submit tests are provided as GitHub Actions workflows.

    An end-to-end test suite is provided in the example-package repository and is run daily.


  • 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]

    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]

    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


    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 project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]

    All linters are set to fail on warning.



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

    All linters are set to be maximally strict with warnings.


  • Secure development knowledge


    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]

    Primary developers include members of security engineering teams and know how to design secure software.

    https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/security/policy#security-team



    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]

    Primary developers include members of security engineering teams and know of common kinds of errors that lead to vulnerabilities in this kind of software.

    https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/security/policy#security-team


  • 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.

    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 project uses only cryptographic protocols and algorithms that are publicly published and reviewed by experts.

    However, those protocols and algorithms have not been all audited and documented: https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/issues/899



    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]

    The purpose of the project is not to implement cryptography and implementation of cryptography is delegated to other libraries designed for this function.



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

    The project uses only cryptographic protocols and algorithms implemented using FLOSS that are publicly published and reviewed by experts.

    However, those protocols and algorithms have not been all audited and documented: https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/issues/899



    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 project uses only cryptographic protocols, algorithms, and key lengths implemented using FLOSS that are publicly published and reviewed by experts.

    However, those protocols and algorithms have not been all audited and documented: https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/issues/899



    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 project uses only cryptographic protocols and algorithms implemented using FLOSS that are publicly published and reviewed by experts.

    However, those protocols and algorithms have not been all audited and documented: https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/issues/899



    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]

    Generated SLSA provenance includes git commit digests that are SHA-1DC which does not currently have any known practical attacks. See https://lwn.net/Articles/898522/



    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]

    The project uses only cryptographic protocols and algorithms implemented using FLOSS that are publicly published and reviewed by experts.

    However, those protocols and algorithms have not been all audited and documented: https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/issues/899



    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 project does not store passwords.



    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 project uses only cryptographic protocols and algorithms implemented using FLOSS that are publicly published and reviewed by experts.

    However, those protocols and algorithms have not been all audited and documented: https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/issues/899


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


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

    The project uses HTTPS.



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

    The project uses HTTPS throughout.


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    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]

    All critical vulnerabilities are patched rapidly after they were reported. https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/security/advisories


  • Other security issues


    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]
  • Static code analysis


    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]

    CodeQL is run on PRs and commits merged to the 'main' branch via the codeql-action.

    https://github.com/github/codeql-action



    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]

    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]

    Vulnerabilities discovered by static analysis are addressed in a timely way.

    https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/security/policy#security-posture



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

    CodeQL is run on every PR and each merged commit that contains code.

    See https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/blob/main/.github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml


  • 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]

    We require unit tests to succeed before PRs are merged. We require end-to-end tests to succeed before releases.

    We do not currently make use of fuzzing, but may in the future as needed. Fuzzing is not currently applicable since we are providing GitHub Actions CI workflows and not a traditional library or application.



    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]

    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]

    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]

    Vulnerabilities discovered by dynamic analysis are addressed in a timely way.

    https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-github-generator/blob/main/SECURITY.md#vulnerability-response



This data is available under the Creative Commons Attribution version 3.0 or later license (CC-BY-3.0+). All are free to share and adapt the data, but must give appropriate credit. Please credit Ian Lewis and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Ian Lewis.
Entry created on 2022-09-21 06:24:23 UTC, last updated on 2024-05-14 23:58:09 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2023-02-15 02:07:22 UTC.

Back