Versions Compared

Old Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Trishan de Lanerolle

Saved on

compared with

New Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Trishan de Lanerolle

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Expand
titleChange Control

Change Control (9 Points) 

(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)


Project A
CriteriaResult / Proof point 

Public version-controlled source repository

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



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



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



Unique version numbering



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



It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) format be used for releases.



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. 



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) 



The release notes MUST identify every publicly known vulnerability with a CVE assignment or similar that is fixed in each new release, unless users typically cannot practically update the software themselves. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose "not applicable" (N/A).





Expand
titleReporting

Reporting (

9

8 Points) 

(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)


Project A
CriteriaResult / Proof point 

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) 

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

The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix.

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

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

Vulnerability report process

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

If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) 

Examples include a private defect report submitted on the web using HTTPS (TLS) or an email encrypted using OpenPGP. If vulnerability reports are always public (so there are never private vulnerability reports), choose "not applicable" (N/A).



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. 

If there have been no vulnerabilities reported in the last 6 months, choose "not applicable" (N/A).





Expand
titleQuality

Quality (13 Points) 

(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)


Project A
CriteriaResult / Proof point 

Working build system
















Automated test suite










New functionality testing










Warning flags









Expand
titleSecurity

Quality (13 Points) 

(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)


Project A
CriteriaResult / Proof point 

Working build system
















Automated test suite










New functionality testing










Warning flags









Expand
titleAnalysis

Analysis (8 Points) 

(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)


Project A
CriteriaResult / Proof point 

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.

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.

All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. 

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

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.

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).

It is SUGGESTED that the software produced by the project include many run-time assertions that are checked during dynamic analysis.

All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed.