How to read
All items marked in yellow are optional items that we do not fully meet
All items marked in orange are mandatory items that we do not fully meet
All items that we do not meet have a statement on their priority: (fix-priority very-low|low|medium|high|very-high)
Basics (12 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
| Identification | ||
What is the human-readable name of the project? | yes | O-RAN SC's Infrastructure RAN = Radio Access Network O-RAN = Open RAN SC = software community Infrastructure = Cloud based infrastructure |
What is a brief description of the project? | yes | The INF(infrastructure) project provides open source reference implementation of Edge Cloud infrastructure according to the O-RAN WG6 specification to be used with the other O-RAN OSC projects such as O-CU, O-DU and in the future potential O-RU to create a complete reference implementation of the different O-RAN use case scenarios as defined by O-RAN Alliance work groups. The work in the INF project will following “Open Collaboration”, “Open Design”, “Open Development” and “Open Source”. |
What is the URL for the project (as a whole)? | yes | Infrastructure Home |
What is the URL for the version control repository (it may be the same as the project URL)? | yes | Multiple repositories in Linux Foundation Gerrit: https://gerrit.o-ran-sc.org/r/admin/repos/ |
What programming language(s) are used to implement the project? | yes | Golang, Python |
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? | yes | Infrastructure Home |
| The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. | yes | obtain: from gerrit repos or from the OSC releases: Releases bugs: Tools (mailing list, JIRA, Gerrit) enhancements: Same JIRAS tool as for feature planning. contribute: See OSC guidelines: Project Developer Wiki |
| The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) | yes | contribute: See OSC guidelines: Project Developer Wiki |
| The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). (URL required) | no (fix-priority very-low) | not available. |
FLOSS license | ||
| What license(s) is the project released under? | yes | Apache 2.0 |
| The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. | yes | Apache 2.0 |
| It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). | yes | |
| The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. | yes | root dir of all repos included in the project |
| Documentation | ||
| The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. | yes | https://docs.o-ran-sc.org/en/latest/projects.html#infrastructure-inf and other documentation under: https://docs.o-ran-sc.org/en/latest/projects.html |
| The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. | partial (fix-priority medium) | Could be better organized. |
| Other | ||
| The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. | yes | |
| 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. | yes | Tools (mailing list, JIRA, Gerrit) |
| The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. | yes | |
Change Control (9 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| 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. | yes | Infrastructure Home |
The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. | yes | Infrastructure Home |
To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. | yes | Infrastructure Home |
It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. | yes | Infrastructure Home |
Unique version numbering | ||
The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users | yes | |
It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) format be used for releases. | yes | |
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. | yes | named branches |
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) | yes | |
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). | no (fix-priority low) | |
Reporting (8 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| 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) | yes | Tools (mailing list, JIRA, Gerrit) |
| The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. | yes | Tools (mailing list, JIRA, Gerrit) |
| The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. | yes | TODO |
| The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). | yes | TODO |
| The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. (URL required) | no (fix-priority low) | |
Vulnerability report process | ||
| The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) | no (fix-priority low) | |
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). | no (fix-priority low) | |
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). | no (fix-priority low) | |
Quality (13 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
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. | yes | LF jenkins |
| It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. | yes | LF jenkins |
| The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. | yes | |
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). | ||
| A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby). | no (fix-priority low) | |
| It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. | partial (fix-priority medium) | improvements possible |
| 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). | yes | |
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. As long as a policy is in place, even by word of mouth, that says developers should add tests to the automated test suite for major new functionality, select "Met. | partial (fix-priority medium) | |
| 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. Major functionality would typically be mentioned in the release notes. Perfection is not required, merely evidence that tests are typically being added in practice to the automated test suite when new major functionality is added to the software produced by the project. | no (fix-priority high) | |
| It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. However, even an informal rule is acceptable as long as the tests are being added in practice. | no (fix-priority medium) | |
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. | partial (fix-priority medium) | |
| The project MUST address warnings. | partial (fix-priority medium) | |
It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. Some warnings cannot be effectively enabled on some projects. What is needed is evidence that the project is striving to enable warning flags where it can, so that errors are detected early. | partial (fix-priority low) | |
Security (16 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
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.) | yes | the PTL and many members are trained for this |
| 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. | yes | the PTL and many members are trained for this |
Use basic good cryptographic practices | ||
| 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).These cryptographic criteria do not always apply because some software has no need to directly use cryptographic capabilities. | yes | no TLS yet, but once it comes in Dawn we need to assure this. |
| 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. | yes | |
| All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. See the Open Standards Requirement for Software by the Open Source Initiative. | yes | |
| 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.These minimum bitlengths are: symmetric key 112, factoring modulus 2048, discrete logarithm key 224, discrete logarithmic group 2048, elliptic curve 224, and hash 224 (password hashing is not covered by this bitlength, more information on password hashing can be found in the crypto_password_storage criterion). See https://www.keylength.com for a comparison of keylength recommendations from various organizations. The software MAY allow smaller keylengths in some configurations (ideally it would not, since this allows downgrade attacks, but shorter keylengths are sometimes necessary for interoperability). | yes | no TLS yet, but once it comes in Dawn we need to assure 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. | yes | no TLS yet, but once it comes in Dawn we need to assure 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). | yes | no TLS yet, but once it comes in Dawn we need to assure 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. | yes | no TLS yet, but once it comes in Dawn we need to assure 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). | no (fix-priority high) | prio 1: implement for netconf |
| 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. | yes | no TLS yet, but once it comes in Dawn we need to assure 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. | yes | |
| A cryptographic hash (e.g., a sha1sum) MUST NOT be retrieved over http and used without checking for a cryptographic signature. | yes | |
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. | no (fix-priority high) | |
| Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. | no (fix-priority low) | |
Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed | ||
| is intended to limit public access. A project MAY leak "sample" credentials for testing and unimportant databases, as long as they are not intended to limit public access. | TODO | |
Analysis (8 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| 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. | yes | Sonar |
| 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. | partial (fix-priority medium) | TODO-check container build system |
| All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. | partial (fix-priority medium) | |
| It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. | partial (fix-priority high) | |
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. | yes | code coverage tool |
| 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). | no (fix-priority low) | |
| It is SUGGESTED that the software produced by the project include many run-time assertions that are checked during dynamic analysis. | no (fix-priority low) | |
| All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. | no (fix-priority low) | |