OperatorFabric Core

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 4806 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

    OperatorFabric is a modular, extensible, industrial-strength platform for use in electricity, water, and other utility operations. It aims to facilitate operational activities for utilities in two ways: - Centralize real time business events in a single place to avoid having multiple screens/software solutions - Facilitate interactions between operational control centers

    This repository contains the OperatorFabric core program.

    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]

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

    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 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]
  • FLOSS license

    What license(s) is the project released under?



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

    The MPL-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 MPL-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/opfab/operatorfabric-core/blob/develop/LICENSE.txt.


  • Documentation


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

    The documentation is found on our project website (https://opfab.github.io/) for the current release as well as for previous releases (https://opfab.github.io/pages/releases.html).



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

    The project website has documentations for our APIs, for example: https://opfab.github.io/documentation/current/api/cards/


  • 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. We also use Slack



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

    Our documentation (https://opfab.github.io/), our issue tracker (https://github.com/opfab/operatorfabric-core/issues) and our pull request reviews are all in 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]

    At the moment, potential users of the projects are all involved in the development so they review the versions on the develop branch, there is no point in having release candidates.



    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]

    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]

    Releases are tagged with git tags pushed to GitHub (https://github.com/opfab/operatorfabric-core/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". (URL required) [release_notes]

    The release notes for all releases are stored on the project website (https://opfab.github.io/pages/releases.html).



    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]

    There have been no publicly known vulnerabilities on the project.


  • 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]

    Users can submit bug reports using GitHub issues : https://github.com/opfab/operatorfabric-core/issues



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

    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]

    So far bugs are addressed in less than 2 months.



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

    So far, a majority (>80%) of enhancement requests are addressed in less than 6 months.



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

    The history of reports and responses is available on GitHub issues. https://github.com/opfab/operatorfabric-core/issues?q=


  • Vulnerability report process


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

    Vulnerabilities can be reported just like bugs, through GitHub issues as stated in the project's community documentation: https://opfab.github.io/documentation/current/community/#_reporting_bugs_or_vulnerabilities_and_suggesting_enhancements



    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]

    Private vulnerability reports are not supported.



    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 have been no vulnerabilities reported so far.


  • 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]

    The repository contains a configured and documented build using Gradle.



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

    We use Gradle, sdkman, nvm, npm, swagger



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

    The tools mentioned above are all 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]

    Every CI build runs the following test suites: - Tests for the Java backend using Junit - UI unit tests using Jasmine and Karma - API tests using Karate These can also be run locally using Gradle tasks. In addition, end-to-end tests can be run using Cypress for web browser automation.



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

    The tests are invoked by the appropriate Gradle task for the subproject or the corresponding Angular cli command.

    See https://github.com/opfab/operatorfabric-core/blob/develop/build.gradle



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

    Our current code coverage is around 80% (https://sonarcloud.io/dashboard?id=org.lfenergy.operatorfabric%3Aoperatorfabric-core). In addition, Karate tests cover most of the API endpoints, and we are starting to introduce Cypress tests for end-to-end tests.



    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]

    We have builds including tests running on Travis CI (https://travis-ci.com/github/opfab/operatorfabric-core).


  • 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 reviewer checklist states that tests should be added as part of the pull request (https://opfab.github.io/documentation/current/community/#_reviewer_check_list).



    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]

    The reviewer checklist states that tests should be added as part of the pull request (https://opfab.github.io/documentation/current/community/#_reviewer_check_list).

    This PR is a recent example of a change being submitted with the accompanying tests: https://github.com/opfab/operatorfabric-core/pull/1037



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

    The reviewer checklist states that tests should be added as part of the pull request (https://opfab.github.io/documentation/current/community/#_reviewer_check_list).


  • 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]

    We use Sonarcloud to report bugs, style and code duplication. We also use linters (tslint, IDE plugins) for common mistakes.



    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]

    We log github issues to address warnings and handle them in a timely fashion.



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

    Sonar analysis is run on each pull request and the reviewer is responsible for making sure all relevant warnings are fixed, as described in the reviewer checklist. We will look into enabling the strict mode for Angular.


  • 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]

    Frédéric Didier (https://github.com/freddidierRTE)



    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]

    Frédéric Didier (https://github.com/freddidierRTE)


  • 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]

    We rely on open-source software using standard algorithms.



    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]

    We rely on open-source software using standard algorithms.



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

    We rely on cryptography mostly for authentication. The project can rely on any OIDC-compliant authentication provider, Keycloak (FLOSS) being the default.



    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 purpose of the project is not to implement cryptography so we rely on specially designed software for this.



    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 purpose of the project is not to implement cryptography so we rely on specially designed software for this.



    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 purpose of the project is not to implement cryptography so we rely on specially designed software for this.



    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 purpose of the project is not to implement cryptography so we rely on specially designed software for this.



    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 purpose of the project is not to implement cryptography so we rely on specially designed software for this.



    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 purpose of the project is not to implement cryptography so we rely on specially designed software for this.


  • 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]

    Our jars are signed before publication to Maven Central. Our Docker images are pushed to DockerHub over https.



    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


    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]

    There have been no publicly known security vulnerabilities in the project itself.



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

    There have been no publicly known security vulnerabilities in the project itself. Additionally, we use a bot to make sure we stay up to date on our dependencies, which should reduce the risk of vulnerabilities. We are experimenting with another bot to get warnings about new vulnerabilities.


  • 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]

    The only credentials present in public repositories are sample 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]

    In addition with running SonarQube locally the project is analyzed on SonarCloud as part of every build (https://sonarcloud.io/dashboard?id=org.lfenergy.operatorfabric%3Aoperatorfabric-core)



    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]

    SonarCloud marks security hotspots and some 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]

    SonarCloud provides warnings and we act on them in a timely way.



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

    In addition with running SonarQube locally the project is analyzed on SonarCloud as part of every build (https://sonarcloud.io/dashboard?id=org.lfenergy.operatorfabric%3Aoperatorfabric-core)


  • 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 do not have any dynamic analysis tool. We have an automated test suite with around 80% code coverage and 70% branch coverage, and the inputs used in tests are random when possible.



    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]

    project use memory-safe language



    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]

    No vulnerabilities have been reported on the project.



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 Alexandra Guironnet and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Alexandra Guironnet.
Entry created on 2021-04-15 15:12:01 UTC, last updated on 2024-11-06 16:22:49 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2023-11-29 14:32:24 UTC.

Back