- Created by Trishan de Lanerolle, last modified on Nov 13, 2020
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current View Page History
« Previous Version 8 Next »
The Best Practices Program is an open source secure development maturity model. Projects having a CII badge will showcase the project’s commitment to security. Open source project maintainers answer a short questionnaire to be awarded a “Best Practices Badge”.
In order for an ORAN-SC project to be awarded the basic "passing" grade, a project should score 100% on the following questions. If a question is not applicable, select N/A.
Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved a Core Infrastructure Initiative (CII) badge. Duplicate this list and complete the tables, as a child page.
Basics (12 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Project A | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
| Identification | ||
What is the human-readable name of the project? | ||
What is a brief description of the project? | ||
What is the URL for the project (as a whole)? | ||
What is the URL for the version control repository (it may be the same as the project URL)? | ||
What programming language(s) are used to implement the project? | ||
What is the Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) name for the project (if it has one)? | ||
Basic project website content | ||
| The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve? | ||
| The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. | ||
| The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) | ||
| The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). (URL required) | ||
FLOSS license | ||
| What license(s) is the project released under? | ||
| The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. | ||
| It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be 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. | ||
| Documentation | ||
| The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. | ||
| The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. | ||
| Other | ||
| The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. | ||
| 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. | ||
| The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. | ||
Change Control (9 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Project A | ||
| Criteria | Result / 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). | ||
Reporting (8 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Project A | ||
| Criteria | Result / 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). | ||
Quality (13 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Project A | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
Working build system | ||
Automated test suite | ||
New functionality testing | ||
Warning flags | ||
Quality (13 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Project A | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
Working build system | ||
Automated test suite | ||
New functionality testing | ||
Warning flags | ||
Analysis (8 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Project A | ||
| Criteria | Result / 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. | ||
- No labels