qoomb

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 baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 11964 is in_progress Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11964/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11964)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11964"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11964/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 1 criteria. These criteria are from baseline version v2025.10.10 with updated criteria text from version v2026.02.19. Criteria that are new in version v2026.02.19 are labeled "future" and will begin to be enforced starting 2026-06-01. Please provide answers to the "future" criteria before that date.

Baseline Series: Baseline Level 1 Baseline Level 2 Baseline Level 3

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    A family organization platform with offline-first capabilities, hybrid encryption, and multi-tenant architecture.

    Please use SPDX license expression format; examples include "Apache-2.0", "BSD-2-Clause", "BSD-3-Clause", "GPL-2.0+", "LGPL-3.0+", "MIT", and "(BSD-2-Clause OR Ruby)". Do not include single quotes or double quotes.
    If there is more than one language, list them as comma-separated values (spaces optional) and sort them from most to least used. If there is a long list, please list at least the first three most common ones. If there is no language (e.g., this is a documentation-only or test-only project), use the single character "-". Please use a conventional capitalization for each language, e.g., "JavaScript".
    The Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) is a structured naming scheme for information technology systems, software, and packages. It is used in a number of systems and databases when reporting vulnerabilities.

 Controls 22/25 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

    When a user attempts to read or modify a sensitive resource in the project's authoritative repository, the system MUST require the user to complete a multi-factor authentication process. [OSPS-AC-01.01]
    Enforce multi-factor authentication for the project's version control system, requiring collaborators to provide a second form of authentication when accessing sensitive data or modifying repository settings. Passkeys are acceptable for this control.

    OSPS-AC-01.01 — Compliant. Two-factor authentication is enforced at the GitHub organization level (COQOON-labs). All collaborators must complete MFA before accessing or modifying repository resources. This is configured in the organization's security settings and applies to all repositories under the organization.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a new collaborator is added, the version control system MUST require manual permission assignment, or restrict the collaborator permissions to the lowest available privileges by default. [OSPS-AC-02.01]
    Most public version control systems are configured in this manner. Ensure the project's version control system always assigns the lowest available permissions to collaborators by default when added, granting additional permissions only when necessary.

    OSPS-AC-02.01 — Compliant. The COQOON-labs GitHub organization's default repository permission is set to read, which is the lowest available privilege level. New collaborators automatically receive read-only access and must be explicitly granted elevated permissions (write, maintain, admin) on a per-repository basis. No manual configuration change is needed — this is the current organizational default.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a direct commit is attempted on the project's primary branch, an enforcement mechanism MUST prevent the change from being applied. [OSPS-AC-03.01]
    If the VCS is centralized, set branch protection on the primary branch in the project's VCS. Alternatively, use a decentralized approach, like the Linux kernel's, where changes are first proposed in another repository, and merging changes into the primary repository requires a specific separate act.

    OSPS-AC-03.01 — Compliant. The main branch has an active ruleset (ID 12610279) that includes a pull_request rule requiring 1 approving review, code owner review, review thread resolution, and dismissal of stale reviews on push. Additionally, required_status_checks (Code Quality, Commit Messages, Tests) must pass before merging. Direct commits to main are blocked — all changes must go through a pull request. Only Organization Admins and the Repository Admin role have bypass permissions, which is expected for a solo-maintainer project.


    Enough for a badge!

    When an attempt is made to delete the project's primary branch, the version control system MUST treat this as a sensitive activity and require explicit confirmation of intent. [OSPS-AC-03.02]
    Set branch protection on the primary branch in the project's version control system to prevent deletion.

    OSPS-AC-03.02 — Compliant. The main branch ruleset (ID 12610279) includes a deletion rule that explicitly prevents deletion of the primary branch. Any attempt to delete main is blocked by GitHub's enforcement mechanism, regardless of user permissions.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a CI/CD pipeline operates on untrusted metadata, those parameters MUST be sanitized and validated prior to use in the pipeline. [OSPS-BR-01.01]
    CI/CD pipelines should sanitize (quote, escape or exit on expected values) all metadata inputs which correspond to untrusted sources. This includes data such as branch names, commit messages, tags, pull request titles, and author information.

    OSPS-AC-03.01 — Compliant (OSPS-BR-01.01). The project's CI/CD pipelines do not accept user-defined input parameters. The only workflow_dispatch trigger (in sbom.yml) has no custom inputs defined — it is a parameterless manual trigger. All ${{ }} expressions reference safe, platform-controlled contexts (github.workflow, github.ref, github.sha, secrets., steps., matrix.*). No expressions interpolate attacker-controllable values (such as github.event.pull_request.title or github.head_ref) into run: steps. The sole use of github.event.pull_request.title is in a safe if: condition (not a shell context), which is not vulnerable to injection.


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    (Future criterion) When a CI/CD pipeline operates on untrusted code snapshots, it MUST prevent access to privileged CI/CD credentials and assets. [OSPS-BR-01.03]
    CI/CD pipelines should isolate untrusted code snapshots from privileged credentials and assets. In particular, projects should be careful to ensure that workflows which build or execute code prior to review by a collaborator do not have access to CI/CD credentials.

    Enough for a badge!

    When the project lists a URI as an official project channel, that URI MUST be exclusively delivered using encrypted channels. [OSPS-BR-03.01]
    Configure the project's websites and version control systems to use encrypted channels such as SSH or HTTPS for data transmission. Ensure all tools and domains referenced in project documentation can only be accessed via encrypted channels.

    Project URLs use HTTPS exclusively.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project lists a URI as an official distribution channel, that channel MUST be protected from adversary-in-the-middle attacks using cryptographically authenticated channels. [OSPS-BR-03.02]
    Artifacts distributed by the project should be distributed through channels which ensure integrity and authenticity. Use of HTTPS for downloads, signed releases, or distribution through trusted package managers are all acceptable methods to protect against adversary-in-the-middle attacks.

    Distribution channels use HTTPS exclusively.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST prevent the unintentional storage of unencrypted sensitive data, such as secrets and credentials, in the version control system. [OSPS-BR-07.01]
    Configure .gitignore or equivalent to exclude files that may contain sensitive information. Use pre-commit hooks and automated scanning tools to detect and prevent the inclusion of sensitive data in commits.

    OSPS-BR-07.01 — Compliant. Multiple layers prevent unintentional storage of secrets in version control:

    .gitignore excludes .env, .env*.local, certs, *.db, and other sensitive file patterns.
    GitHub Secret Scanning is enabled at the organization/repository level, detecting committed credentials automatically.
    Trivy secret scanner (trivy.yml) runs a dedicated secret scan type on every push and PR with exit-code: '1' — the pipeline fails if any secrets are detected.
    Trivy filesystem scan additionally scans for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in committed files.
    CodeQL (codeql.yml) performs SAST analysis that can also flag hardcoded credentials in source code.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include user guides for all basic functionality. [OSPS-DO-01.01]
    Create user guides or documentation for all basic functionality of the project, explaining how to install, configure, and use the project's features. If there are any known dangerous or destructive actions available, include highly-visible warnings.

    OSPS-DO-01.01 — Not Applicable (yet). The project has not made any release yet — it is at version 0.1.0 in pre-release development (Phase 1). This requirement only applies "when the project has made a release." No GitHub Releases or published packages exist. When the first release is published, user documentation covering installation, configuration, and usage will need to be created. Current documentation (README.md, SETUP.md, docs) covers developer setup but not end-user guides.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include a guide for reporting defects. [OSPS-DO-02.01]
    It is recommended that projects use their VCS default issue tracker. If an external source is used, ensure that the project documentation and contributing guide clearly and visibly explain how to use the reporting system. It is recommended that project documentation also sets expectations for how defects will be triaged and resolved.

    GitHub provides defect reporting mechanisms by default (via issues).


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project MUST have one or more mechanisms for public discussions about proposed changes and usage obstacles. [OSPS-GV-02.01]
    Establish one or more mechanisms for public discussions within the project, such as mailing lists, instant messaging, or issue trackers, to facilitate open communication and feedback.

    GitHub supports public discussions on proposed changes (via pull requests) and usage obstacles (via issues).


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include an explanation of the contribution process. [OSPS-GV-03.01]
    Create a CONTRIBUTING.md or CONTRIBUTING/ directory to outline the contribution process including the steps for submitting changes, and engaging with the project maintainers.

    OSPS-GV-03.01 — Compliant. The project includes a CONTRIBUTING.md at the repository root that documents the full contribution process: prerequisites, development setup, fork & branch workflow, Conventional Commits format, pull request procedure, code standards enforcement (Prettier, ESLint, TypeScript, Commitlint, CodeQL, Trivy), project structure overview, and maintainer contact information. The CLA requirement is referenced with a link to LICENSE.md. A separate CONTRIBUTORS.md lists recognized contributors and links back to CONTRIBUTING.md.


    Not enough for a badge.

    While active, the license for the source code MUST meet the OSI Open Source Definition or the FSF Free Software Definition. [OSPS-LE-02.01]
    Add a LICENSE file to the project's repo with a license that is an approved license by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), or a free license as approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Examples of such licenses include the MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). Releasing to the public domain meets this control if there are no other encumbrances such as patents.

    OSPS-LE-02.01 — Not Compliant (by design). Qoomb uses the Fair Source License v1.0, which is intentionally not OSI-approved or FSF-recognized. This is a deliberate business decision to enable a sustainable dual-licensing model: free for individuals, families, and organizations with fewer than 10 employees, while requiring a commercial license for larger enterprises and SaaS usage. Adopting an OSI/FSF-approved license would remove the ability to enforce commercial licensing for large-scale use, undermining the project's sustainability model. The trade-off is accepted — the project prioritizes long-term viability over meeting this specific compliance criterion.


    Not enough for a badge.

    While active, the license for the released software assets MUST meet the OSI Open Source Definition or the FSF Free Software Definition. [OSPS-LE-02.02]
    If a different license is included with released software assets, ensure it is an approved license by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), or a free license as approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Examples of such licenses include the MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). Note that the license for the released software assets may be different than the source code.

    OSPS-LE-02.02 — Not Compliant (by design). Same as OSPS-LE-02.01 — released assets use the same Fair Source License v1.0, which is not OSI/FSF-approved. Deliberate choice for dual-licensing sustainability.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the license for the source code MUST be maintained in the corresponding repository's LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory. [OSPS-LE-03.01]
    Include the project's source code license in the project's LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory to provide visibility and clarity on the licensing terms. The filename MAY have an extension. If the project has multiple repositories, ensure that each repository includes the license file.

    License file found in repository.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the license for the released software assets MUST be included in the released source code, or in a LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory alongside the corresponding release assets. [OSPS-LE-03.02]
    Include the project's released software assets license in the released source code, or in a LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory alongside the corresponding release assets to provide visibility and clarity on the licensing terms. The filename MAY have an extension. If the project has multiple repositories, ensure that each repository includes the license file.

    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project's source code repository MUST be publicly readable at a static URL. [OSPS-QA-01.01]
    Use a common VCS such as GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket. Ensure the repository is publicly readable. Avoid duplication or mirroring of repositories unless highly visible documentation clarifies the primary source. Avoid frequent changes to the repository that would impact the repository URL. Ensure the repository is public.

    Repository is publicly available on GitHub.


    Enough for a badge!

    The version control system MUST contain a publicly readable record of all changes made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [OSPS-QA-01.02]
    Use a common VCS such as GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket to maintain a publicly readable commit history. Avoid squashing or rewriting commits in a way that would obscure the author of any commits.

    Repository git metadata is publicly available on GitHub.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the package management system supports it, the source code repository MUST contain a dependency list that accounts for the direct language dependencies. [OSPS-QA-02.01]
    This may take the form of a package manager or language dependency file that enumerates all direct dependencies such as package.json, Gemfile, or go.mod.

    Enough for a badge!

    Projects with multiple repositories MUST document a list of codebases that are part of the project. [OSPS-QA-04.01]
    Document any additional subproject code repositories produced by the project and compiled into a release. This documentation should include the status and intent of the respective codebase.

    OSPS-QA-04.01 — Not Applicable. Qoomb is a single monorepo (COQOON-labs/qoomb) with no external subproject repositories. All components — applications (api, web, mobile) and shared libraries (types, validators, ui, config, eslint-config) — reside within this repository and are managed as pnpm workspaces. There are no separate codebases compiled into the release. The project structure is documented in both README.md and claude.md.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the version control system MUST NOT contain generated executable artifacts. [OSPS-QA-05.01]
    Remove generated executable artifacts in the project's version control system. It is recommended that any scenario where a generated executable artifact appears critical to a process such as testing, it should be instead be generated at build time or stored separately and fetched during a specific well-documented pipeline step.

    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the version control system MUST NOT contain unreviewable binary artifacts. [OSPS-QA-05.02]
    Do not add any unreviewable binary artifacts to the project's version control system. This includes executable application binaries, library files, and similar artifacts. It does not include assets such as graphical images, sound or music files, and similar content typically stored in a binary format.

    OSPS-QA-05.02 — Compliant. The repository contains no unreviewable binary artifacts. All tracked files are human-readable source code (TypeScript, JSON, YAML, Markdown, SQL, shell scripts) or permissible assets (PNG/SVG icons for PWA). Build outputs (dist/, node_modules, .turbo) are excluded via .gitignore and never committed. No executable binaries, compiled libraries, or opaque archive files are present in version control.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST contain security contacts. [OSPS-VM-02.01]
    Create a security.md (or similarly-named) file that contains security contacts for the project.

    Enough for a badge!

    (Obsolete criterion) When a CI/CD pipeline uses a branch name in its functionality, that name value MUST be sanitized and validated prior to use in the pipeline. [OSPS-BR-01.02]

    OSPS-BR-01.02 — Compliant. Branch name references (github.ref, github.base_ref) are only used in safe contexts: concurrency.group keys for deduplication and an actions/checkout ref: parameter (version-check.yml:71). Neither is interpolated into a run: shell step where injection could occur. The concurrency.group context is a GitHub-platform construct that does not execute shell commands, and actions/checkout's ref input is handled internally by the action without shell interpolation. No branch names are used in shell scripts, run: blocks, or other injectable contexts.



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 Benjamin Gröner and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Benjamin Gröner.
Entry created on 2026-02-17 15:07:26 UTC, last updated on 2026-02-17 15:40:10 UTC.