Security scorecards for open source projects
opensource.googleblog.com
Security scorecards for open source projects
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#2The usage example in the README gives Kubernetes a 10/10 on security. Would it score that highly if the tool took into consideration all of its dependencies? https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/vendor/...
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#3Received these results for my own open source project:
./scorecard --repo=github.com/bookstackapp/bookstack
RESULTS
-------
Active: Pass 10
CI-Tests: Pass 8
CII-Best-Practices: Fail 10
Code-Review: Fail 10
Contributors: Pass 10
Frozen-Deps: Pass 10
Fuzzing: Fail 3
Pull-Requests: Pass 7
SAST: Fail 0
Security-Policy: Fail 10
Signed-Releases: Fail 0
Signed-Tags: Pass 10
> The goal of the Scorecards project is to auto-generate a “security score” for open source projects to help users as they decide the trust, risk, and security posture for their use case.
Will there be a centralised site to gather and display scores for open source projects? Or will it be up to the open source projects themselves to integrate this into their pages and, if so, what does that look like? Some kind of badge or a listing of the results as above? Just trying to understand how end-users will be interpreting the results in a consistent and trusted manner.
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#4It seems like an awful waste for me to run these on each of my dependencies in real time. I expected some list that is just maintained and pinged for values.
Also, this scorecard doesn’t look for CVEs or problems in particular versions. It seems like it’s much more important that there’s a valid vulnerability in version 1.04 that I’m using than the current version has code reviews for everything.
The reason I care is that I wish there was some stamp of approval on pypi packages that would make it easier for me to trust particular packages and releases.
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#5It seems like an awful waste for me to run these on each of my dependencies in real time. I expected some list that is just maintained and pinged for values. Also, this scorecard doesn’t look for CVEs or problems in particular versions. It seems like it’s much more important that there’s a valid vulnerability in version 1.04 that I’m using than the current version has code reviews for everything. The reason I care is…
I think you miss the point then. The things it's looking for are indicators security practices are even in place. If you wanted vuln scanning, many solutions for that today exist. This is almost like a reputation score. The higher it is, the more likely vulnerabilities will be addressed in the future (or outright prevented).
I like the idea, I think it will just be tough to work out the right heuristics.
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#6The usage example in the README gives Kubernetes a 10/10 on security. Would it score that highly if the tool took into consideration all of its dependencies? https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/vendor/...
Probably not. I think the intent is for big shops to quantify the risk of adopting an open source project. This is just a way to codify how teams justify whether a project is "mature enough" for adoption.
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#7The usage example in the README gives Kubernetes a 10/10 on security. Would it score that highly if the tool took into consideration all of its dependencies? https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/vendor/...
Probably not. I think the intent is for big shops to quantify the risk of adopting an open source project. This is just a way to codify how teams justify whether a project is "mature enough" for adoption.
Appears to be an open source alternative to Black Duck Software.
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#8Received these results for my own open source project: ./scorecard --repo=github.com/bookstackapp/bookstack RESULTS ------- Active: Pass 10 CI-Tests: Pass 8 CII-Best-Practices: Fail 10 Code-Review: Fail 10 Contributors: Pass 10 Frozen-Deps: Pass 10 Fuzzing: Fail 3 Pull-Requests: Pass 7 SAST: Fail 0 Security-Policy: Fail 10 Signed-Releases: Fail 0 Signed-Tags: Pass 10 Results appear fair and accurate. I am confused th…
We are still thinking of ways to capture scores for various open source projects in an automated fashion and/or work with GitHub to display this kind of information as part of their user interface. Right now, project maintainers need to run it themselves.
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#9It seems like an awful waste for me to run these on each of my dependencies in real time. I expected some list that is just maintained and pinged for values. Also, this scorecard doesn’t look for CVEs or problems in particular versions. It seems like it’s much more important that there’s a valid vulnerability in version 1.04 that I’m using than the current version has code reviews for everything. The reason I care is…
Yes, we will automate score capturing over all projects in real-time in the future. https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/issues/12
The work to capture current vuln state is tracked in https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/issues/52
Re: Security scorecards for open source projects
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not. I think the intent is for big shops to quantify the risk of adopting an open source project. This is just a way to codify how teams justify whether a project is "mature enough" for adoption.
Appears to be an open source alternative to Black Duck Software. https://www.blackducksoftware.com/
The goals are different. Our goal is to help both open source developer improve their project so that it is more secure for the community in the long term. It also gives the consumer this information for free, rather than paying / subscribing to a service.