libdwarf-code

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 7275 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

    Contains source for libdwarf, a library for reading DWARF2 and later DWARF. Contains source to create dwarfdump, a program which prints DWARF2 and later DWARF in readable format. Has a very limited DWARF writer set of functions in libdwarfp (producer library). Builds using GNU configure, meson, or cmake.

    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]

    Repository files CONTRIBUTING.md and SECURITY.md mention how to provide feedback and to contribute. In addition one can submit Issues to the github repository.



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

    Non-trivial contribution file in repository: https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md. Pull requests are allowed.



    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]

    Each file documents the appropriate FLOSS term. in the Libraries (libdwarf,libdwarfp) many are LGPL-2.1, many are FreeBSD-2-Clause or FreeBSD-3-Clause. A few are Apache-2.0 or similar.

    In the dwarfdump program source files are GPL2.1 or FreeBSD 2-Clause or FreeBSD 3-Clause.



    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]

    // Did not find license in the OSI list.



    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/davea42/libdwarf-code/blob/main/COPYING.


  • Documentation


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

    Some documentation basics file contents found in the repository. See doc/libdwarf.pdf and doc/dwarfdump.1

    In addition, the latest libdwarf documentation is at https://www.prevanders.net/libdwarfdoc/index.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]

    libdwarf is documented using doxygen (users do not need to install doxygen).

    Online it is: https://www.prevanders.net/libdwarfdoc/index.html

    dwarfdump is documented by the source file doc/dwarfdump.1 and the command "dwarfdump -h".


  • Other


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

    website and repository are https sites.



    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 CONTRIBUTING.md text specifies an email address for the project.



    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]

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

    https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/ 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]

    All versions of all source are in the libdwarf-code repository.



    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]

    Latest release is version 0.6.0 (as of this writing). The project uses Ssemantic Version numbers.



    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]

    Every release gets a unique git tag.


  • 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]

    Non-trivial release notes file in repository: https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/blob/main/ChangeLog.



    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]
  • 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]

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

    Issues can be filed on the project, and vulnerability report (if applicable) is reported in the bugxml directory in the project.



    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]

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

    Most requests that we judge appropriate to implement are responded to within hours and fixed within a week.



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


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

    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]


    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]
  • 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]

    Non-trivial build file in repository: https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt. Builds with GNU configure and meson as well.

    Examples and documentation on building is in: https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/blob/main/README.md https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/blob/main/README.cmake



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

    Non-trivial build file in repository: https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt. configure and meson are also common tools.



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

    cmake, configure, and meson/ninja (combined with sh (shell),bash,python, are all FLOSS tools.


  • 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]

    https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-regressiontests See the README in that project.



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

    The testing is done with standard command line tools (shell scripts and python and a standard C compiler).



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

    The test scripts in libdwarf-regressiontests, and adding libdwarf-code/test (make check if using configure) test all APIs in the library and all options to dwarfdump. The regressiontests involve nearly 20000 individual tests that are routinely run on latest Ubuntu Linux little-endian (AMD64), FreeBSD (64bit and 32bit), and a big-endian machine Ubuntu Linux AMD64. The workflows building and running on Windows msys2 64 and on MacOS.



    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]

    The waste of compute resources in tests based on push (meaning workflows etc) would be considerable. Most changes are by the principal author, who runs all the tests for all changes, and changes appear in small groups over a period of hours. Not appropriate to build on push for this project at this time.


  • 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]

    Every change that involves code either gets new tests added to libdwarf-regressiontests or we determine that existing tests verify the code.



    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]

    ChangeLog in libdwarf-code and libdwarf-regressiontests demonstrate this.



    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]

    Where available a '-Werror' option is used via a 'configure --enable-wall' or the like so warnings are treated as errors.

    CoverityScan is run after all logic changes and if any defect is found changes are made to eliminate those defects.



    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]

    All warnings (from any compiler) are treated as errors and are fixed as soon as known.



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

    Compiler warnings are enabled by configure (or cmake or meson) on request when building the library etc. When running the built-libraries all errors are returned to callers, normally with detailed infomation (unless the caller turns off detailed 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]

    The key developer has read and learned from many books on the subject over many years. Far too many to list. And maintained and enhanced crucial software components at companies you likely know. This is an ongoing process, of course. As a long time member of the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society one keeps up to date on recent advances.



    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]

    One set of common errors is the use of strcat, strcpy,strcmp, strncmp as the traditional libc functions are unsafe. So the project uses safe versions that substitute for those instead. libdwarf and dwarfdump write nothing except text. They read nothing from the web. They try to validate all internal references before use.


  • 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]

    No cryptography used or needed.



    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]

    No cryptography used or needed.



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

    No cryptography used or needed.



    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]

    No cryptography used or needed.



    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]

    No cryptography used or needed.



    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]

    No security mechanisms apply.



    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]

    No security mechanisms apply.



    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]

    No authentication used or needed



    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]

    No security mechanisms used or needed


  • 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]

    None used or needed. Libdwarf and dwarfdump read files the user provides.



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

    No cryptography used or needed. Libdwarf and dwarfdump simply read files.


  • 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]

    Shown by: https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/dwarfbug.html https://www.prevanders.net/dwarfbug.html which show the vulnerabilities reported date and fix date and the testcase added to regression testing.


  • 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]

    No private credentials used.


  • 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]

    CoverityScan



    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]

    CoverityScan



    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]

    It's quite rare for a bug to require a week to fix. Most fixed in under 24 hours.



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

    CoverityScan is run by hand after logic changes.


  • 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]

    oss-fuzz is currently being run on libdwarf. https://github.com/davea42/libdwarf-code/fuzz/README.md comments on this. the source files here are library calls to run against fuzzed object files.



    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]

    oss-fuzz is run continually, (not by me).



    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 assertions (and the implied crash on failing) the library instead tests for appropriate values and returns an error if there is a problem. libdwarf never exit()s.



    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]

    Typically within a day,rarely up to a week.



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 David Anderson and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: David Anderson.
Entry created on 2023-04-27 16:07:48 UTC, last updated on 2023-04-29 16:51:37 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2023-04-27 21:09:32 UTC.

Back