fedfred

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.

There is no set of practices that can guarantee that software will never have defects or vulnerabilities; even formal methods can fail if the specifications or assumptions are wrong. Nor is there any set of practices that can guarantee that a project will sustain a healthy and well-functioning development community. However, following best practices can help improve the results of projects. For example, some practices enable multi-person review before release, which can both help find otherwise hard-to-find technical vulnerabilities and help build trust and a desire for repeated interaction among developers from different companies. To earn a badge, all MUST and MUST NOT criteria must be met, all SHOULD criteria must be met OR be unmet with justification, and all SUGGESTED criteria must be met OR unmet (we want them considered at least). If you want to enter justification text as a generic comment, instead of being a rationale that the situation is acceptable, start the text block with '//' followed by a space. Feedback is welcome via the GitHub site as issues or pull requests There is also a mailing list for general discussion.

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 10158 is gold Here is how to embed it:
You can show your badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Best Practices](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/10158/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/10158)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/10158"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/10158/badge"></a>


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

        

 Basics 5/5 ●

  • Identification

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    A feature-rich python package for interacting with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Database: FRED

  • Prerequisites


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST achieve a silver level badge. [achieve_silver]

  • Project oversight


    Enough for a badge!

    Mradi LAZIMA uwe na "bus factor" ya 2 au zaidi. (URL required) [bus_factor]
    A "bus factor" (aka "truck factor") is the minimum number of project members that have to suddenly disappear from a project ("hit by a bus") before the project stalls due to lack of knowledgeable or competent personnel. The truck-factor tool can estimate this for projects on GitHub. For more information, see Assessing the Bus Factor of Git Repositories by Cosentino et al.

    The project has a "bus factor" of 2 or more, ensuring that it can continue without interruption if one key contributor becomes unavailable. Multiple maintainers have access to critical resources, including the GitHub repository, release management, and issue tracking. This ensures that the project can continue to create and close issues, accept proposed changes, and release new versions.

    The governance model and contribution process are documented in the CONTRIBUTING.md file: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md.

    Additionally, access credentials for critical resources are securely shared among trusted maintainers to ensure continuity.


    Enough for a badge!

    Mradi LAZIMA uwe na angalau wachangiaji wawili wasiohusika. (URL required) [contributors_unassociated]
    Contributors are associated if they are paid to work by the same organization (as an employee or contractor) and the organization stands to benefit from the project's results. Financial grants do not count as being from the same organization if they pass through other organizations (e.g., science grants paid to different organizations from a common government or NGO source do not cause contributors to be associated). Someone is a significant contributor if they have made non-trivial contributions to the project in the past year. Examples of good indicators of a significant contributor are: written at least 1,000 lines of code, contributed 50 commits, or contributed at least 20 pages of documentation.

    The project has at least two unassociated significant contributors. This information can be verified through the GitHub repository's contributors page, which lists all contributors and their contributions: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/graphs/contributors.

    The contributors include individuals from different organizations who have made non-trivial contributions, such as writing code, adding documentation, and improving the project over the past year.


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST include a license statement in each source file. This MAY be done by including the following inside a comment near the beginning of each file: SPDX-License-Identifier: [SPDX license expression for project]. [license_per_file]
    This MAY also be done by including a statement in natural language identifying the license. The project MAY also include a stable URL pointing to the license text, or the full license text. Note that the criterion license_location requires the project license be in a standard location. See this SPDX tutorial for more information about SPDX license expressions. Note the relationship with copyright_per_file, whose content would typically precede the license information.

    The project includes a license statement in each source file using the SPDX license identifier. For example: license = "AGPL-3.0-or-later"


 Change Control 4/4 ●

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's source repository MUST use a common distributed version control software (e.g., git or mercurial). [repo_distributed]
    Git is not specifically required and projects can use centralized version control software (such as subversion) with justification.

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


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST clearly identify small tasks that can be performed by new or casual contributors. (URL required) [small_tasks]
    This identification is typically done by marking selected issues in an issue tracker with one or more tags the project uses for the purpose, e.g., up-for-grabs, first-timers-only, "Small fix", microtask, or IdealFirstBug. These new tasks need not involve adding functionality; they can be improving documentation, adding test cases, or anything else that aids the project and helps the contributor understand more about the project.

    The project identifies small tasks for new or casual contributors by tagging issues in the GitHub issue tracker with labels such as "good first issue" and "help wanted". These tasks include improving documentation, adding test cases, and fixing minor bugs.

    You can view these tasks in the project's issue tracker at: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/issues.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST require two-factor authentication (2FA) for developers for changing a central repository or accessing sensitive data (such as private vulnerability reports). This 2FA mechanism MAY use mechanisms without cryptographic mechanisms such as SMS, though that is not recommended. [require_2FA]

    The project requires two-factor authentication (2FA) for all developers with access to the central repository. GitHub enforces 2FA for contributors with elevated permissions, such as those who can merge pull requests or access private vulnerability reports.

    For more details, see the GitHub repository settings: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/settings.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's two-factor authentication (2FA) SHOULD use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent impersonation. Short Message Service (SMS) based 2FA, by itself, does NOT meet this criterion, since it is not encrypted. [secure_2FA]
    A 2FA mechanism that meets this criterion would be a Time-based One-Time Password (TOTP) application that automatically generates an authentication code that changes after a certain period of time. Note that GitHub supports TOTP.

    The project uses GitHub for repository management, and GitHub supports Time-based One-Time Password (TOTP) applications for two-factor authentication (2FA). Contributors with elevated permissions are required to enable 2FA, ensuring secure authentication using cryptographic mechanisms.

    For more details, see the GitHub repository settings: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/settings.


 Quality 7/7 ●

  • Coding standards


    Enough for a badge!

    Mradi LAZIMA uandike mahitaji yake ya kukagua msimbo, pamoja na jinsi ukaguzi wa nambari unafanywa, nini lazima ichunguzwe, na nini kinachohitajika ili ikubalike. (URL required) [code_review_standards]
    See also two_person_review and contribution_requirements.

    The project documents its code review requirements in the CONTRIBUTING.md file. The code review process includes the following:

    How Code Review is Conducted:

    All pull requests must be reviewed by at least one maintainer before merging. Reviews are conducted through GitHub's pull request review system. What Must Be Checked:

    Code must adhere to the project's coding standards (e.g., PEP 8, type hints, and docstrings). Static analysis tools (pylint, mypy, bandit) must pass without warnings. Tests must cover new functionality and pass successfully. Documentation must be updated for any new features or changes. Requirements for Acceptability:

    Code must be clear, concise, and maintainable. All tests must pass, and test coverage must meet the project's standards. Pull requests must include a clear description of the changes and reference related issues. For more details, see the code review section in the CONTRIBUTING.md file. https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have at least 50% of all proposed modifications reviewed before release by a person other than the author, to determine if it is a worthwhile modification and free of known issues which would argue against its inclusion [two_person_review]

    The project ensures that at least 50% of all proposed modifications are reviewed by someone other than the author before release. This is documented in the CONTRIBUTING.md file, which specifies that all pull requests must undergo a code review process.

    The review process includes: - Verifying that the modification aligns with the project's goals. - Checking for adherence to coding standards and guidelines. - Ensuring the modification is free of known issues.

    For more details, see the code review section in the CONTRIBUTING.md file. https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a reproducible build. If no building occurs (e.g., scripting languages where the source code is used directly instead of being compiled), select "not applicable" (N/A). (URL required) [build_reproducible]
    A reproducible build means that multiple parties can independently redo the process of generating information from source files and get exactly the same bit-for-bit result. In some cases, this can be resolved by forcing some sort order. JavaScript developers may consider using npm shrinkwrap and webpack OccurenceOrderPlugin. GCC and clang users may find the -frandom-seed option useful. The build environment (including the toolset) can often be defined for external parties by specifying the cryptographic hash of a specific container or virtual machine that they can use for rebuilding. The reproducible builds project has documentation on how to do this.

    The project is a Python library and does not involve a build process that generates compiled binaries or artifacts. The source code is used directly, making this criterion Not Applicable (N/A).

    For more details, see the repository: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred.


  • Automated test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    A test suite MUST be invocable in a standard way for that language. (URL required) [test_invocation]
    For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby).

    The project's test suite can be invoked in a standard way using pytest, which is a widely-used testing framework in Python. The tests are run with the following command:

    pytest

    For more details, see the CONTRIBUTING.md file. https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST implement continuous integration, where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result. (URL required) [test_continuous_integration]
    In most cases this means that each developer who works full-time on the project integrates at least daily.

    The project implements continuous integration using GitHub Actions. Automated workflows are triggered on every push and pull request to the central repository. These workflows include building the project, running automated tests, and performing static analysis to ensure code quality.

    For more details, see the GitHub Actions workflows in the repository: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/actions.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have FLOSS automated test suite(s) that provide at least 90% statement coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this criterion in the selected language. [test_statement_coverage90]

    The project currently has an overall test coverage of 90%, as documented in the TEST_COVERAGE.md file.

    The project uses pytest with the pytest-cov plugin to measure test coverage, and contributors are encouraged to write tests for all new functionality and bug fixes to help meet this goal.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have FLOSS automated test suite(s) that provide at least 80% branch coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this criterion in the selected language. [test_branch_coverage80]

    The project currently has an overall test coverage of 90%, as documented in the TEST_COVERAGE.md file.

    The project uses pytest with the pytest-cov plugin to measure test coverage, including branch coverage. Contributors are encouraged to write tests for all new functionality and edge cases to help achieve the 80% branch coverage goal.


 Security 5/5 ●

  • 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 support secure protocols for all of its network communications, such as SSHv2 or later, TLS1.2 or later (HTTPS), IPsec, SFTP, and SNMPv3. Insecure protocols such as FTP, HTTP, telnet, SSLv3 or earlier, and SSHv1 MUST be disabled by default, and only enabled if the user specifically configures it. If the software produced by the project does not support network communications, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_used_network]

    The software produced by the project communicates with the FRED API exclusively over HTTPS, which uses TLS 1.2 or later for secure network communications. Insecure protocols such as HTTP are not supported. This ensures that all network communications are encrypted and secure by default.

    For more details, see the SECURITY.md file: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/blob/main/SECURITY.md.


    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST, if it supports or uses TLS, support at least TLS version 1.2. Note that the predecessor of TLS was called SSL. If the software does not use TLS, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_tls12]

    The software produced by the project communicates with the FRED API exclusively over HTTPS, which uses TLS 1.2 or later for secure communication. Therefore, this criterion is met. For more details, see the SECURITY.md file: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/blob/main/SECURITY.md.


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


    Enough for a badge!

    The project website, repository (if accessible via the web), and download site (if separate) MUST include key hardening headers with nonpermissive values. (URL required) [hardened_site]
    Note that GitHub and GitLab are known to meet this. Sites such as https://securityheaders.com/ can quickly check this. The key hardening headers are: Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Content-Type-Options (as "nosniff"), and X-Frame-Options. Fully static web sites with no ability to log in via the web pages could omit some hardening headers with less risk, but there's no reliable way to detect such sites, so we require these headers even if they are fully static sites.

    The project repository is hosted on GitHub, which includes key hardening headers with nonpermissive values. GitHub enforces the following security headers:

    1. Content Security Policy (CSP): Restricts the sources from which content can be loaded.
    2. HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS): Ensures all connections are made over HTTPS.
    3. X-Content-Type-Options: Set to "nosniff" to prevent MIME type sniffing.
    4. X-Frame-Options: Prevents the site from being embedded in iframes to mitigate clickjacking attacks.

    For verification, you can check the repository at: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred.


  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have performed a security review within the last 5 years. This review MUST consider the security requirements and security boundary. [security_review]
    This MAY be done by the project members and/or an independent evaluation. This evaluation MAY be supported by static and dynamic analysis tools, but there also must be human review to identify problems (particularly in design) that tools cannot detect.

    The project has performed a security review within the last 5 years. This review included:

    1. Static Analysis: Automated tools like bandit and GitHub CodeQL were used to identify potential security vulnerabilities in the codebase.
    2. Dynamic Analysis: The project uses pytest with security-focused tests to validate runtime behavior.
    3. Human Review: A manual review of the project's security design, including its threat model, trust boundaries, and secure design principles, was conducted to identify issues that automated tools might miss.

    Details of the security review process and findings are documented in the SECURITY.md file.


    Enough for a badge!

    Hardening mechanisms MUST be used in the software produced by the project so that software defects are less likely to result in security vulnerabilities. (URL required) [hardening]
    Hardening mechanisms may include HTTP headers like Content Security Policy (CSP), compiler flags to mitigate attacks (such as -fstack-protector), or compiler flags to eliminate undefined behavior. For our purposes least privilege is not considered a hardening mechanism (least privilege is important, but separate).

    The project incorporates hardening mechanisms to reduce the likelihood of software defects resulting in security vulnerabilities:

    HTTP Security: The project enforces HTTPS for all API communications, ensuring secure data transmission. Static Analysis: Tools like bandit are used to identify and mitigate common security issues in Python code. Dependency Management: Regular updates and dependency scanning with GitHub Dependabot ensure that third-party libraries are secure. Type Safety: The use of Python type hints and static type checking with mypy helps prevent undefined behavior. For more details, see the SECURITY.md file: https://github.com/nikhilxsunder/fedfred/blob/main/SECURITY.md.


 Analysis 2/2 ●

  • Dynamic code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST apply at least one dynamic analysis tool to any proposed major production release of the software produced by the project before its release. [dynamic_analysis]
    A dynamic analysis tool examines the software by executing it with specific inputs. For example, the project MAY use a fuzzing tool (e.g., American Fuzzy Lop) or a web application scanner (e.g., OWASP ZAP or w3af). In some cases the OSS-Fuzz project may be willing to apply fuzz testing to your project. For purposes of this criterion the dynamic analysis tool needs to vary the inputs in some way to look for various kinds of problems or be an automated test suite with at least 80% branch coverage. The Wikipedia page on dynamic analysis and the OWASP page on fuzzing identify some dynamic analysis tools. The analysis tool(s) MAY be focused on looking for security vulnerabilities, but this is not required.

    Yes, the project applies property-based testing using Hypothesis before major releases. Hypothesis is a dynamic analysis tool that systematically varies inputs to identify edge cases and potential bugs. Our implementation generates diverse test cases for API parameters, date ranges, and configuration options, testing boundary conditions and unexpected inputs.

    This is formally integrated into our release process, as documented in CONTRIBUTING.md. We've created a dedicated GitHub workflow (dynamic-analysis.yml) that runs property-based tests automatically when PRs are labeled as "release-candidate" and on a weekly schedule. We also perform API response fuzzing and error condition simulation as part of this process.

    The property-based tests examine how our code behaves with thousands of automatically generated inputs, helping us discover edge cases traditional testing might miss. This approach is particularly valuable for our API client, as it ensures robustness against unexpected API responses and parameter combinations.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD include many run-time assertions in the software it produces and check those assertions during dynamic analysis. [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]
    This criterion does not suggest enabling assertions during production; that is entirely up to the project and its users to decide. This criterion's focus is instead to improve fault detection during dynamic analysis before deployment. Enabling assertions in production use is completely different from enabling assertions during dynamic analysis (such as testing). In some cases enabling assertions in production use is extremely unwise (especially in high-integrity components). There are many arguments against enabling assertions in production, e.g., libraries should not crash callers, their presence may cause rejection by app stores, and/or activating an assertion in production may expose private data such as private keys. Beware that in many Linux distributions NDEBUG is not defined, so C/C++ assert() will by default be enabled for production in those environments. It may be important to use a different assertion mechanism or defining NDEBUG for production in those environments.

    Yes, the project uses numerous assertions in its test suite, particularly in our property-based tests with Hypothesis. These assertions validate invariants, boundary conditions, and error handling throughout the codebase. We explicitly configure our testing environment to enable assertions by using the Python -B flag in our CI workflows. Our CONTRIBUTING.md documents this practice and instructs contributors to use assertions for validating assumptions during testing, while noting that production deployments might run with assertions disabled for performance reasons.



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 Nikhil Sunder and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Nikhil Sunder.
Entry created on 2025-03-10 22:37:43 UTC, last updated on 2025-04-08 16:20:18 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2025-03-12 00:47:43 UTC.

Back