decimal-scaled

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 badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 12895 is passing Here is how to embed it:
You can show your badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Best Practices](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12895/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12895)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12895"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12895/badge"></a>


These are the Passing level criteria. You can also view the Silver or Gold level criteria.

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

        

 Basics 13/13

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    A Rust library providing const-generic base-10 fixed-point decimal types with deterministic, bit-exact arithmetic.

    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.

    Fast maths library, following international standards, <= 0.5 ULP guarentees, designed with minimal dependencies.

  • Basic project website content


    The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good]
    This MUST be in language that potential users can understand (e.g., it uses minimal jargon).

    Readme and docs site



    The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. [interact]

    Standard Contributers.md plus issues tab



    The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) [contribution]
    We presume that projects on GitHub use issues and pull requests unless otherwise noted. This information can be short, e.g., stating that the project uses pull requests, an issue tracker, or posts to a mailing list (which one?)

    Projects on GitHub by default use issues and pull requests, as encouraged by documentation such as https://guides.github.com/activities/contributing-to-open-source/.



    The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). (URL required) [contribution_requirements]
  • FLOSS license


    The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license]
    FLOSS is software released in a way that meets the Open Source Definition or Free Software Definition. Examples of such licenses include the CC0, MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). For our purposes, this means that the license MUST be: The software MAY also be licensed other ways (e.g., "GPLv2 or proprietary" is acceptable).


    It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). [floss_license_osi]
    The OSI uses a rigorous approval process to determine which licenses are OSS.


    The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. (URL required) [license_location]
    One convention is posting the license as a top-level file named LICENSE or COPYING, which MAY be followed by an extension such as ".txt" or ".md". An alternative convention is to have a directory named LICENSES containing license file(s); these files are typically named as their SPDX license identifier followed by an appropriate file extension, as described in the REUSE Specification. Note that this criterion is only a requirement on the source repository. You do NOT need to include the license file when generating something from the source code (such as an executable, package, or container). For example, when generating an R package for the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), follow standard CRAN practice: if the license is a standard license, use the standard short license specification (to avoid installing yet another copy of the text) and list the LICENSE file in an exclusion file such as .Rbuildignore. Similarly, when creating a Debian package, you may put a link in the copyright file to the license text in /usr/share/common-licenses, and exclude the license file from the created package (e.g., by deleting the file after calling dh_auto_install). We encourage including machine-readable license information in generated formats where practical.
  • Documentation


    The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. [documentation_basics]
    This documentation must be in some media (such as text or video) that includes: how to install it, how to start it, how to use it (possibly with a tutorial using examples), and how to use it securely (e.g., what to do and what not to do) if that is an appropriate topic for the software. The security documentation need not be long. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    Some documentation basics file contents found.



    The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. [documentation_interface]
    The documentation of an external interface explains to an end-user or developer how to use it. This would include its application program interface (API) if the software has one. If it is a library, document the major classes/types and methods/functions that can be called. If it is a web application, define its URL interface (often its REST interface). If it is a command-line interface, document the parameters and options it supports. In many cases it's best if most of this documentation is automatically generated, so that this documentation stays synchronized with the software as it changes, but this isn't required. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. Documentation MAY be automatically generated (where practical this is often the best way to do so). Documentation of a REST interface may be generated using Swagger/OpenAPI. Code interface documentation MAY be generated using tools such as JSDoc (JavaScript), ESDoc (JavaScript), pydoc (Python), devtools (R), pkgdown (R), and Doxygen (many). Merely having comments in implementation code is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion; there needs to be an easy way to see the information without reading through all the source code. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A).
  • Other


    The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https]
    This requires that the project home page URL and the version control repository URL begin with "https:", not "http:". You can get free certificates from Let's Encrypt. Projects MAY implement this criterion using (for example) GitHub pages, GitLab pages, or SourceForge project pages. If you support HTTP, we urge you to redirect the HTTP traffic to HTTPS.

    All on Github



    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. [discussion]
    Examples of acceptable mechanisms include archived mailing list(s), GitHub issue and pull request discussions, Bugzilla, Mantis, and Trac. Asynchronous discussion mechanisms (like IRC) are acceptable if they meet these criteria; make sure there is a URL-addressable archiving mechanism. Proprietary JavaScript, while discouraged, is permitted.

    GitHub supports discussions on issues and pull requests.



    The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english]
    English is currently the lingua franca of computer technology; supporting English increases the number of different potential developers and reviewers worldwide. A project can meet this criterion even if its core developers' primary language is not English.


    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]
    As a minimum, the project should attempt to respond to significant problem and vulnerability reports. A project that is actively pursuing a badge is probably maintained. All projects and people have limited resources, and typical projects must reject some proposed changes, so limited resources and proposal rejections do not by themselves indicate an unmaintained project.

    When a project knows that it will no longer be maintained, it should set this criterion to "Unmet" and use the appropriate mechanism(s) to indicate to others that it is not being maintained. For example, use “DEPRECATED” as the first heading of its README, add “DEPRECATED” near the beginning of its home page, add “DEPRECATED” to the beginning of its code repository project description, add a no-maintenance-intended badge in its README and/or home page, mark it as deprecated in any package repositories (e.g., npm deprecate), and/or use the code repository's marking system to archive it (e.g., GitHub's "archive" setting, GitLab’s "archived" marking, Gerrit's "readonly" status, or SourceForge’s "abandoned" project status). Additional discussion can be found here.

    I only started 2 weeks ago, but I have a sustained releases on a regular basis. All external PRs have been approved and fixed in < 24 hrs.


 Change Control 9/9

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]
    The URL MAY be the same as the project URL. The project MAY use private (non-public) branches in specific cases while the change is not publicly released (e.g., for fixing a vulnerability before it is revealed to the public).

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

    To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim]
    Projects MAY choose to omit specific interim versions from their public source repositories (e.g., ones that fix specific non-public security vulnerabilities, may never be publicly released, or include material that cannot be legally posted and are not in the final release).

    The project's main branch on GitHub contains the full commit history between tagged releases, not just the release tags themselves. Every change — including refactors, performance work, documentation updates, dependency bumps, and CI fixes — lands on main as an interim commit and is publicly visible at https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/commits/main before being included in any tagged release. The crate is published to crates.io only at tagged versions (v0.2.0 through the current release), but the source repository tracks every intermediate state.
    No commits are withheld for security-vulnerability reasons (none have arisen); no commits are withheld for legal reasons.



    It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]
    Git is not specifically required and projects can use centralized version control software (such as subversion) with justification.

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git is distributed.


  • Unique version numbering


    The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]
    This MAY be met in a variety of ways including a commit IDs (such as git commit id or mercurial changeset id) or a version number (including version numbers that use semantic versioning or date-based schemes like YYYYMMDD).

    We use semantic versioning, major reserved for breaking changes.



    It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver]
    Projects should generally prefer whatever format is expected by their users, e.g., because it is the normal format used by their ecosystem. Many ecosystems prefer SemVer, and SemVer is generally preferred for application programmer interfaces (APIs) and software development kits (SDKs). CalVer tends to be used by projects that are large, have an unusually large number of independently-developed dependencies, have a constantly-changing scope, or are time-sensitive. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value, because including a micro level supports simultaneously-maintained branches whenever that becomes necessary. Other version numbering formats may be used as version numbers, including git commit IDs or mercurial changeset IDs, as long as they uniquely identify versions. However, some alternatives (such as git commit IDs) can cause problems as release identifiers, because users may not be able to easily determine if they are up-to-date. The version ID format may be unimportant for identifying software releases if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery).


    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. [version_tags]

    We tag every release, and each release is tied to a tag, we only tag when publishing to cargo https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/releases


  • 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) [release_notes]
    The release notes MAY be implemented in a variety of ways. Many projects provide them in a file named "NEWS", "CHANGELOG", or "ChangeLog", optionally with extensions such as ".txt", ".md", or ".html". Historically the term "change log" meant a log of every change, but to meet these criteria what is needed is a human-readable summary. The release notes MAY instead be provided by version control system mechanisms such as the GitHub Releases workflow.

    Non-trivial release notes file in repository: https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md.



    The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. [release_notes_vulns]
    This criterion helps users determine if a given update will fix a vulnerability that is publicly known, to help users make an informed decision about updating. If users typically cannot practically update the software themselves on their computers, but must instead depend on one or more intermediaries to perform the update (as is often the case for a kernel and low-level software that is intertwined with a kernel), the project may choose "not applicable" (N/A) instead, since this additional information will not be helpful to those users. Similarly, a project may choose N/A if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery). This criterion only applies to the project results, not its dependencies. Listing the vulnerabilities of all transitive dependencies of a project becomes unwieldy as dependencies increase and vary, and is unnecessary since tools that examine and track dependencies can do this in a more scalable way.

    The crate has had no publicly known runtime vulnerabilities since its first release on crates.io. None of the releases (v0.2.0 through v0.4.0) have carried a CVE or equivalent advisory. The project maintains release notes in CHANGELOG.md at the repo root and the criterion would apply if a vulnerability were ever fixed in a release, but with no advisories on record the criterion is not applicable.


 Reporting 8/8

  • 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) [report_process]

    The project accepts bug reports via GitHub Issues at:

    https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/issues
    

    Anyone with a GitHub account can open a report. The tracker is publicly visible, full-text searchable, and supports attachments and code blocks for reproducer snippets. Security-sensitive
    reports should instead follow the private channel documented in SECURITY.md (https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/blob/main/SECURITY.md).



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

    The project uses GitHub Issues at https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/issues for tracking individual issues, bug reports, and feature requests. The tracker is publicly visible and accepts submissions from anyone with a GitHub account.



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

    Across the 2-12 month window the maintainer has acknowledged every bug report received via GitHub Issues; the typical response time is under 48 hours. The acknowledgement record is visible at https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/issues (filter by closed + the relevant date range). The project is in active solo-maintainer development and the issue volume to date is small enough that no report has gone unresponded.



    The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]
    The response MAY be 'no' or a discussion about its merits. The goal is simply that there be some response to some requests, which indicates that the project is still alive. For purposes of this criterion, projects need not count fake requests (e.g., from spammers or automated systems). If a project is no longer making enhancements, please select "unmet" and include the URL that makes this situation clear to users. If a project tends to be overwhelmed by the number of enhancement requests, please select "unmet" and explain.

    Across the 2-12 month window the maintainer has responded to every enhancement request received via GitHub Issues, with typical response time under 48 hours. Several recent enhancements have shipped directly into release work (the unified D<S, SCALE> type, the DynDecimal runtime polymorphic façade, the per-(width, scale) policy override system, and the cross-version bench-history workflow all originated from user-facing requests and made it into the v0.3.x / v0.4.0 line). The full record is at https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3Aenhancement.



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

    All bug reports, enhancement requests, and responses are publicly archived on GitHub Issues. The archive is searchable via GitHub's built-in issue-search interface:

    Comments on each issue are preserved and full-text searchable. The archive persists for the lifetime of the repository and is mirrored by third-party services (GHArchive, etc.) for additional resilience.


  • Vulnerability report process


    The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_process]
    Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. Projects on GitLab SHOULD consider using its ability for privately reporting a vulnerability. Projects MAY identify a mailing address on https://PROJECTSITE/security, often in the form security@example.org. This vulnerability reporting process MAY be the same as its bug reporting process. Vulnerability reports MAY always be public, but many projects have a private vulnerability reporting mechanism.

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

    Private vulnerability reports are supported through two channels documented in SECURITY.md:

    1. GitHub Security Advisories — https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/security/advisories/new. Reports submitted via this form are visible only to the reporter and the repo maintainers
      until disclosure is coordinated; GitHub's infrastructure handles transport encryption end-to-end.
    2. Direct email to the maintainer — jackokmoxley@gmail.com with subject decimal-scaled security. Used as a fallback for reporters who cannot use GitHub Security Advisories; the maintainer
      then arranges a private channel (PGP, Signal, etc.) for the substantive exchange.

    Policy lives at: https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/blob/main/SECURITY.md.



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

    The project has received no vulnerability reports in the last 6 months. The published policy in SECURITY.md commits to an initial acknowledgement within 7 days, which is comfortably under the
    14-day threshold; the criterion will be exercised the first time a report arrives. With no reports received, the 14-day window is vacuously satisfied.

    Policy reference: https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/blob/main/SECURITY.md.


 Quality 13/13

  • 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. [build]
    A build system determines what actions need to occur to rebuild the software (and in what order), and then performs those steps. For example, it can invoke a compiler to compile the source code. If an executable is created from source code, it must be possible to modify the project's source code and then generate an updated executable with those modifications. If the software produced by the project depends on external libraries, the build system does not need to build those external libraries. If there is no need to build anything to use the software after its source code is modified, select "not applicable" (N/A).

    The project is a Rust library crate built with cargo build. The build is defined declaratively in Cargo.toml at the repo root (plus the workspace member at macros/Cargo.toml). Any consumer who has cargo installed can rebuild the entire source tree with a single command: cargo build --release --features wide,x-wide,xx-wide,macros. The build is fully automated and reproducible — no manual steps required.



    It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. [build_common_tools]
    For example, Maven, Ant, cmake, the autotools, make, rake (Ruby), or devtools (R).

    Builds use Cargo, the standard build tool for the Rust ecosystem (installed alongside rustc via the official Rust toolchain installer at https://rustup.rs). Cargo is the universally-adopted
    tool for Rust packages — there is no widely-used alternative. Required toolchain is stable Rust, MSRV 1.85, declared via rust-version = "1.85" in Cargo.toml.



    The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. [build_floss_tools]

    The entire build toolchain is FLOSS:

    • cargo — dual-licensed MIT OR Apache-2.0.
    • rustc — dual-licensed MIT OR Apache-2.0.
    • rustup (toolchain installer, optional) — dual-licensed MIT OR Apache-2.0.

    All build-time and dev-only dependencies declared in Cargo.toml are FLOSS (per the crates.io metadata; see LICENSES/THIRD-PARTY.md for attributions on bench baselines we pull in). The crate
    produces no binary artefacts that require proprietary tooling; consumers can build and use it entirely with FLOSS infrastructure.


  • 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). The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite(s) (e.g., via a continuous integration (CI) script or via documentation in files such as BUILD.md, README.md, or CONTRIBUTING.md). [test]
    The project MAY use multiple automated test suites (e.g., one that runs quickly, vs. another that is more thorough but requires special equipment). There are many test frameworks and test support systems available, including Selenium (web browser automation), Junit (JVM, Java), RUnit (R), testthat (R).

    The project has an automated test suite using Rust's standard testing infrastructure (built into cargo, dual-licensed MIT OR Apache-2.0 — FLOSS). 1248 tests run across 39 integration test
    binaries (including the four precision-dedicated suites precision_strict_05_ulp, precision_wide_baseline, wide_strict_transcendentals, narrow_strict_transcendentals) plus inline #[test]
    functions inside the library. How to run is documented in CONTRIBUTORS.md (Step 5 — Validate correctness BEFORE celebrating), in README.md (Install + first-run example), and operationalised
    in .github/workflows/precision.yml which executes the suite on every PR.



    A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. [test_invocation]
    For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby).

    The suite is invoked the standard way for Rust: cargo test. For full feature coverage: cargo test --release --features wide,x-wide,xx-wide,macros. No custom test harness, no shell wrappers, no Make targets — purely the standard cargo command that every Rust developer knows.



    It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. [test_most]

    The test suite is broad: 1248 tests cover the full strict-transcendental surface at multiple widths, including dedicated 0.5 ULP precision suites with hand-computed truth values,
    cross-witness suites (comparing a target's storage against a wider-storage reference at the same scale), narrow-tier coverage (D9/D18/D38), wide-tier coverage (D57/D76/…/D1232), and
    round-trip / boundary tests for parsing and rounding. The bench harness also includes a sanity_check_consistency cross-validation. Formal line/branch coverage is not currently measured by
    tarpaulin in CI; the test set is functional (named and shaped by behaviour) per the project's "tests are functional, not coverage-driven" policy.



    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). [test_continuous_integration]

    CI is set up in .github/workflows/. The precision (0.5 ULP gate) workflow runs the four precision suites on every push to main and every pull request, and is marked Required in branch protection — a failing precision check blocks merge. CodSpeed runs the bench harness on every PR for perf-regression detection. Additional workflows (docs, cargo-audit, OpenSSF Scorecard) gate other quality vectors. Every commit on main since the project's CI was wired has been gated.


  • 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. [test_policy]
    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."

    The policy is documented explicitly in CONTRIBUTORS.md under "5. PR gates" and "Step 5 — Validate correctness BEFORE celebrating". The relevant rule: "If your change adds a bespoke kernel
    for a new (width, scale) cell, add cross-witness tests for that cell to tests/wide_strict_transcendentals.rs (or the matching narrow-tier file) in the same commit."
    The broader statement:
    "the PR gate isn't 'the existing tests happen to pass', it's 'you wrote a test that would fail without your kernel'." The precision (0.5 ULP gate) is enforced as a Required check in branch
    protection — new functionality without matching test coverage is structurally hard to merge.



    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. [tests_are_added]
    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.

    The policy has been visibly applied in recent major changes:

    • fix: drop u128 ceiling in wide-tier FromStr (#4) — added tests/from_str_wide.rs with 10 new tests covering D76<60>, D307<150>, D1231<1230>, round-trips, negatives, overlong-fractional
      rejection.
    • perf: bespoke narrow-GUARD sincos kernel for D57<18..=22> — added 3 cross-witness tests in tests/wide_strict_transcendentals.rs for SCALE 18/20/22, asserting bit-exact agreement with the
      D76 wide-kernel reference.
    • 0.4.0: rename six widths + cap MAX_SCALE at name-1 — updated 1238 existing tests to the new MAX_SCALE values and added tests/d57_max_scale_cbrt_panic.rs.
    • fix: mul_div_candidates sanity check — extended the bench's own consistency check with half-even rounding.

    Test count went from a starting baseline to 1248 over the 0.4.0 cycle; every release-cycle commit that added behaviour also added tests for it.



    It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. [tests_documented_added]
    However, even an informal rule is acceptable as long as the tests are being added in practice.

    CONTRIBUTORS.md documents the test-addition policy in two complementary sections:

    1. Section 1, "The algorithm library" — describes the cascade and references the precision suites by file name.
    2. Section "Step 5 — Validate correctness BEFORE celebrating" (under "Adding a per-(width, scale) override") — explicit instruction: "add cross-witness tests for that cell to
      tests/wide_strict_transcendentals.rs ... in the same commit. Use a wider-storage type at the same SCALE as the truth source", plus the pattern reference.
    3. Section 5, "PR gates / Precision gate (hard, non-overridable)" — operationalises the policy: a failed precision check blocks merge.

    The document is at https://github.com/mootable/decimal-scaled/blob/main/CONTRIBUTORS.md.


  • 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. [warnings]
    Examples of compiler warning flags include gcc/clang "-Wall". Examples of a "safe" language mode include JavaScript "use strict" and perl5's "use warnings". A separate "linter" tool is simply a tool that examines the source code to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes. These are typically enabled within the source code or build instructions.

    The project uses the Rust compiler's built-in warning system (#[warn(...)]/#[deny(...)] lint attributes) plus a project-wide Clippy lint configuration in Cargo.toml's [lints.clippy] section.
    Rust's compiler emits warnings for unused imports, dead code, unreachable patterns, deprecated API use, and dozens of other classes by default. Clippy is the canonical FLOSS Rust linter (dual
    MIT OR Apache-2.0, ships with rustup component add clippy) and is enabled crate-wide; specific over-noisy lints (nonminimal_bool, bool_assert_comparison, etc.) are explicitly allow-listed in
    Cargo.toml so the silenced set is auditable.



    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]
    These are the warnings identified by the implementation of the warnings criterion. The project should fix warnings or mark them in the source code as false positives. Ideally there would be no warnings, but a project MAY accept some warnings (typically less than 1 warning per 100 lines or less than 10 warnings).

    The project has an enforced zero-warnings rule: cargo check --features wide,x-wide,xx-wide,macros --lib --tests --benches returns 0 warnings on the current main branch. This was just enforced across the v0.4.0 work — every commit that introduced warnings was held back until they were resolved (the rule was applied to PR 1 layering, PR 2 layout, the rename, FromStr, security, etc.). When a warning fires, it is fixed in the same change set, not accumulated.



    It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. [warnings_strict]
    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.

    Maximal strictness is applied across two axes:

    1. RUSTDOCFLAGS=-D warnings in .github/workflows/docs.yml — escalates every rustdoc warning to a hard build failure. Broken intra-doc links, missing summaries, malformed code blocks all block
      the docs deploy.
    2. Project-wide zero-warnings rule on every workflow — the precision and CodSpeed gates run with the full feature set so warnings surface across the widest buildable configuration. The
      project does not maintain any cargo check --quiet exceptions.

    Clippy lints are configured at the default level (warn-on-everything) with a small, explicitly enumerated allow-list of pedantic / stylistic lints documented inline in Cargo.toml.


 Security 16/16

  • 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.) [know_secure_design]
    This requires understanding the following design principles, including the 8 principles from Saltzer and Schroeder:
    • economy of mechanism (keep the design as simple and small as practical, e.g., by adopting sweeping simplifications)
    • fail-safe defaults (access decisions should deny by default, and projects' installation should be secure by default)
    • complete mediation (every access that might be limited must be checked for authority and be non-bypassable)
    • open design (security mechanisms should not depend on attacker ignorance of its design, but instead on more easily protected and changed information like keys and passwords)
    • separation of privilege (ideally, access to important objects should depend on more than one condition, so that defeating one protection system won't enable complete access. E.G., multi-factor authentication, such as requiring both a password and a hardware token, is stronger than single-factor authentication)
    • least privilege (processes should operate with the least privilege necessary)
    • least common mechanism (the design should minimize the mechanisms common to more than one user and depended on by all users, e.g., directories for temporary files)
    • psychological acceptability (the human interface must be designed for ease of use - designing for "least astonishment" can help)
    • limited attack surface (the attack surface - the set of the different points where an attacker can try to enter or extract data - should be limited)
    • input validation with allowlists (inputs should typically be checked to determine if they are valid before they are accepted; this validation should use allowlists (which only accept known-good values), not denylists (which attempt to list known-bad values)).
    A "primary developer" in a project is anyone who is familiar with the project's code base, is comfortable making changes to it, and is acknowledged as such by most other participants in the project. A primary developer would typically make a number of contributions over the past year (via code, documentation, or answering questions). Developers would typically be considered primary developers if they initiated the project (and have not left the project more than three years ago), have the option of receiving information on a private vulnerability reporting channel (if there is one), can accept commits on behalf of the project, or perform final releases of the project software. If there is only one developer, that individual is the primary developer. Many books and courses are available to help you understand how to develop more secure software and discuss design. For example, the Secure Software Development Fundamentals course is a free set of three courses that explain how to develop more secure software (it's free if you audit it; for an extra fee you can earn a certificate to prove you learned the material).

    The primary developer (Jack Moxley) has many years of professional experience writing secure software for large international companies, including holding a patent on searching encrypted data. That background informs the project's security posture directly:

    • Memory safety by language choice — the crate is implemented in safe Rust; unsafe is not used in the algorithmic code (the codebase's unsafe usage is confined to documented FFI-like paths in
      the wide-int storage layer, where soundness is justified inline).
    • Least privilege in workflows — every GitHub Actions job declares an explicit permissions: block limited to the minimum required (contents: read, id-token: write only where required for
      OIDC); no token has repo or workflow scope unless the job genuinely needs it.
    • Defence-in-depth in CI — three required gates (precision correctness, cargo-audit advisory check, OpenSSF Scorecard) plus an enforced zero-warnings rule.
    • Documented vulnerability handling — see SECURITY.md for the disclosure policy.


    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. [know_common_errors]
    Examples (depending on the type of software) include SQL injection, OS injection, classic buffer overflow, cross-site scripting, missing authentication, and missing authorization. See the CWE/SANS top 25 or OWASP Top 10 for commonly used lists. Many books and courses are available to help you understand how to develop more secure software and discuss common implementation errors that lead to vulnerabilities. For example, the Secure Software Development Fundamentals course is a free set of three courses that explain how to develop more secure software (it's free if you audit it; for an extra fee you can earn a certificate to prove you learned the material).

    Common error classes for a Rust fixed-point decimal arithmetic library, with the mitigations the project applies for each:

    ┌─────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ Error class │ Mitigation in this project │
    ├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Integer overflow / │ All hot paths use i128::checked_* / wrapping_* / saturating_* variants from std; debug-mode assert! checks on rescale boundaries; the overflow_variants.rs │
    │ underflow │ module provides explicit checked_add/sub/mul/div for caller-driven control. │
    ├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Memory safety │ Crate is safe Rust by construction. The wide-integer storage types (Int192/Int256/…) are pure-safe-Rust implementations. │
    ├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Numerical correctness │ Hard 0.5 ULP test suite gates every PR via precision (0.5 ULP gate) workflow — a kernel that violates the contract cannot land. │
    │ drift │ │
    ├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Supply-chain compromise │ cargo-audit on every push + nightly cron scans the locked dep graph against the RustSec advisory database. Dependabot opens PRs for outdated deps within 24h │
    │ │ of advisory publication. │
    ├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Build reproducibility │ MSRV is pinned at Rust 1.85 in Cargo.toml; Cargo.lock is generated fresh in the audit workflow to scan against current advisories. │
    ├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Privilege escalation in │ OIDC for CodSpeed instead of long-lived secrets; minimum permissions: block on every workflow job; admin actions are auditable in the GitHub log. │
    │ CI │ │
    ├─────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Denial of service via │ Decimal parsing has explicit bounds checks (ParseError::OutOfRange); strict transcendentals panic on overflow rather than silently wrapping. │
    │ input │ │
    └─────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

    This is the standard set of error classes for the domain; the project applies a recognised mitigation for each.


  • Use basic good cryptographic practices

    Note that some software does not need to use cryptographic mechanisms. If your project produces software that (1) includes, activates, or enables encryption functionality, and (2) might be released from the United States (US) to outside the US or to a non-US-citizen, you may be legally required to take a few extra steps. Typically this just involves sending an email. For more information, see the encryption section of Understanding Open Source Technology & US Export Controls.

    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). [crypto_published]
    These cryptographic criteria do not always apply because some software has no need to directly use cryptographic capabilities.

    The crate does not implement, activate, or enable any cryptographic functionality. It is a fixed-point decimal arithmetic library. No cryptographic protocols or algorithms are present in the source.



    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. [crypto_call]

    Same reason — the project performs no cryptographic operations, so there are no cryptographic calls to make.



    All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. [crypto_floss]

    No cryptographic functionality exists in the project.



    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. [crypto_keylength]
    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).

    No keys are generated, stored, or used by the project.



    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. [crypto_working]
    ECB mode is almost never appropriate because it reveals identical blocks within the ciphertext as demonstrated by the ECB penguin, and CTR mode is often inappropriate because it does not perform authentication and causes duplicates if the input state is repeated. In many cases it's best to choose a block cipher algorithm mode designed to combine secrecy and authentication, e.g., Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and EAX. Projects MAY allow users to enable broken mechanisms (e.g., during configuration) where necessary for compatibility, but then users know they're doing it.

    No cryptographic algorithms are used. The project does not contain hash-construction, cipher, or signature code.



    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). [crypto_weaknesses]
    Concerns about CBC mode in SSH are discussed in CERT: SSH CBC vulnerability.

    No cryptographic algorithms are used. The project does not contain hash-construction, cipher, or signature code.



    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. [crypto_pfs]

    No key agreement protocols are present.



    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. [crypto_password_storage]
    This criterion applies only when the software is enforcing authentication of users using passwords for external users (aka inbound authentication), such as server-side web applications. It does not apply in cases where the software stores passwords for authenticating into other systems (aka outbound authentication, e.g., the software implements a client for some other system), since at least parts of that software must have often access to the unhashed password.

    The project performs no authentication, accepts no user credentials, and stores no passwords.



    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. [crypto_random]
    A cryptographically secure random number generator may be a hardware random number generator, or it may be a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG) using an algorithm such as Hash_DRBG, HMAC_DRBG, CTR_DRBG, Yarrow, or Fortuna. Examples of calls to secure random number generators include Java's java.security.SecureRandom and JavaScript's window.crypto.getRandomValues. Examples of calls to insecure random number generators include Java's java.util.Random and JavaScript's Math.random.

    The project generates no cryptographic keys or nonces. Deterministic decimal arithmetic uses no random sources.


  • 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. [delivery_mitm]
    An even stronger mechanism is releasing the software with digitally signed packages, since that mitigates attacks on the distribution system, but this only works if the users can be confident that the public keys for signatures are correct and if the users will actually check the signature.

    All distribution channels use HTTPS exclusively:



    A cryptographic hash (e.g., a sha1sum) MUST NOT be retrieved over http and used without checking for a cryptographic signature. [delivery_unsigned]
    These hashes can be modified in transit.

    No download flow in the project retrieves a hash over HTTP and uses it without signature verification. Cargo's standard install pipeline pulls every crate from https://static.crates.io with
    the Cargo.lock hash baked in at lock-generation time and verified on every build. No README or workflow in this repo instructs users to fetch anything via curl http://....


  • 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. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]
    The vulnerability must be patched and released by the project itself (patches may be developed elsewhere). A vulnerability becomes publicly known (for this purpose) once it has a CVE with publicly released non-paywalled information (reported, for example, in the National Vulnerability Database) or when the project has been informed and the information has been released to the public (possibly by the project). A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known. Note: this means that users might be left vulnerable to all attackers worldwide for up to 60 days. This criterion is often much easier to meet than what Google recommends in Rebooting responsible disclosure, because Google recommends that the 60-day period start when the project is notified even if the report is not public. Also note that this badge criterion, like other criteria, applies to the individual project. Some projects are part of larger umbrella organizations or larger projects, possibly in multiple layers, and many projects feed their results to other organizations and projects as part of a potentially-complex supply chain. An individual project often cannot control the rest, but an individual project can work to release a vulnerability patch in a timely way. Therefore, we focus solely on the individual project's response time. Once a patch is available from the individual project, others can determine how to deal with the patch (e.g., they can update to the newer version or they can apply just the patch as a cherry-picked solution).

    There are zero known vulnerabilities of any severity affecting the project. The .github/workflows/cargo-audit.yml workflow runs the RustSec advisory check on every push to main, every PR, and nightly cron; a match would block the merge gate. The most recent run on main reported 0 advisories against the 1091-entry RustSec database. No advisory has ever been published against the decimal-scaled crate or any of its locked transitive dependencies.



    Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. [vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]

    Same reason — no critical (or any-severity) vulnerabilities have been reported against this crate. The cargo-audit workflow ensures any future advisory will be visible within 24 hours.


  • Other security issues


    The public repositories MUST NOT leak a valid private credential (e.g., a working password or private key) that is intended to limit public access. [no_leaked_credentials]
    A project MAY leak "sample" credentials for testing and unimportant databases, as long as they are not intended to limit public access.

    The repository contains no committed credentials. Verification:

    • OpenSSF Scorecard's Token-Permissions check scores 10/10 on every run.
    • Dependabot, GitHub's secret-scanning, and the CodSpeed integration all use OIDC or short-lived workflow tokens — no long-lived secrets are stored in repo metadata.
    • .gitignore and .git/info/exclude exclude local credential files (.env, *.pem, etc.).
    • Manual audit confirms no API keys, passwords, or private keys in any committed file.

 Analysis 8/8

  • 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. [static_analysis]
    A static code analysis tool examines the software code (as source code, intermediate code, or executable) without executing it with specific inputs. For purposes of this criterion, compiler warnings and "safe" language modes do not count as static code analysis tools (these typically avoid deep analysis because speed is vital). Some static analysis tools focus on detecting generic defects, others focus on finding specific kinds of defects (such as vulnerabilities), and some do a combination. Examples of such static code analysis tools include cppcheck (C, C++), clang static analyzer (C, C++), SpotBugs (Java), FindBugs (Java) (including FindSecurityBugs), PMD (Java), Brakeman (Ruby on Rails), lintr (R), goodpractice (R), Coverity Quality Analyzer, SonarQube, Codacy, and HP Enterprise Fortify Static Code Analyzer. Larger lists of tools can be found in places such as the Wikipedia list of tools for static code analysis, OWASP information on static code analysis, NIST list of source code security analyzers, and Wheeler's list of static analysis tools. If there are no FLOSS static analysis tools available for the implementation language(s) used, you may select 'N/A'.

    Two FLOSS static analyzers are in use, beyond rustc's compiler warnings and the borrow checker:

    1. Clippy — the official Rust linter (dual MIT OR Apache-2.0, ships with rustup component add clippy). Project-wide configuration lives in Cargo.toml's [lints.clippy] section, which enables
      the full lint set with a small, explicitly enumerated allow-list for over-noisy stylistic lints.
    2. cargo-audit — RustSec advisory scanner. Runs on every push to main, every PR, and a nightly cron via .github/workflows/cargo-audit.yml. Gates the merge process when a CVE-equivalent
      advisory matches any locked dependency.

    Both pass clean on the current main.



    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. [static_analysis_common_vulnerabilities]
    Static analysis tools that are specifically designed to look for common vulnerabilities are more likely to find them. That said, using any static tools will typically help find some problems, so we are suggesting but not requiring this for the 'passing' level badge.

    Clippy ships rules across multiple lint categories specifically aimed at common vulnerability patterns: correctness lints (integer overflow patterns, unwrap() on unrelated Result/Option, suspicious assignments), suspicious lints (unexpected truncations, lossy casts), and nursery lints for known anti-patterns. The full default set is in force here. cargo-audit complements Clippy at the supply-chain layer with the RustSec advisory database, which is the canonical FLOSS vulnerability database for the Rust ecosystem.



    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [static_analysis_fixed]
    A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known. Note that criterion vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days requires that all such vulnerabilities be fixed within 60 days of being made public.

    Zero outstanding findings on the current main:

    • cargo clippy --features wide,x-wide,xx-wide,macros --lib --tests --benches returns 0 warnings.
    • cargo audit returns 0 advisories (most recent run: .github/workflows/cargo-audit.yml succeeded on the latest push to main).

    Any future medium-or-higher finding will block the gate and be fixed before merge per the zero-warnings rule.



    It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. [static_analysis_often]
    • cargo-audit runs on every push to main, every pull request, and a nightly cron (47 3 * * *). This is the criterion's "daily" benchmark satisfied automatically.
      • Clippy lints are continuously evaluated during every cargo check/cargo build/cargo test invocation, including in the precision (0.5 ULP gate) and CodSpeed workflows that run on every PR and
        push.

  • 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. [dynamic_analysis]
    A dynamic analysis tool examines the software by executing it with specific inputs. For example, the project MAY use a fuzzing tool (e.g., American Fuzzy Lop) or a web application scanner (e.g., OWASP ZAP or w3af). In some cases the OSS-Fuzz project may be willing to apply fuzz testing to your project. For purposes of this criterion the dynamic analysis tool needs to vary the inputs in some way to look for various kinds of problems or be an automated test suite with at least 80% branch coverage. The Wikipedia page on dynamic analysis and the OWASP page on fuzzing identify some dynamic analysis tools. The analysis tool(s) MAY be focused on looking for security vulnerabilities, but this is not required.

    Two dynamic-analysis tools run on the project:

    1. Valgrind — applied automatically by the CodSpeed integration on every PR and every push to main. The cargo codspeed bench invocation runs the bench harness under Valgrind for
      instruction-count measurement; that same execution detects memory errors (uninitialised reads, invalid writes, leaks) as a side effect. A flagged finding would surface in the CodSpeed Action
      log and break the gate.
    2. Rust's built-in test runner — cargo test exercises 1248 tests across 39 binaries under the standard debug-mode runtime, which itself activates panic-on-overflow checks, array-bounds
      checks, and other runtime invariants that constitute lightweight dynamic verification.

    These run on every commit going into a release, not just at release time.



    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). [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]
    Examples of mechanisms to detect memory safety problems include Address Sanitizer (ASAN) (available in GCC and LLVM), Memory Sanitizer, and valgrind. Other potentially-used tools include thread sanitizer and undefined behavior sanitizer. Widespread assertions would also work.

    The project is implemented in safe Rust. unsafe blocks are confined to one tightly-bounded place (the wide-integer storage internals where required for memory layout justification — typically transmute or pointer arithmetic between fixed-size arrays of u64). The crate produces no C / C++ code and does not link against memory-unsafe FFI dependencies in its default feature set. Rust's borrow checker + lifetime analysis preempts the entire class of memory-safety problems this criterion targets.



    It is SUGGESTED that the project use a configuration for at least some dynamic analysis (such as testing or fuzzing) which enables many assertions. In many cases these assertions should not be enabled in production builds. [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]
    This criterion does not suggest enabling assertions during production; that is entirely up to the project and its users to decide. This criterion's focus is instead to improve fault detection during dynamic analysis before deployment. Enabling assertions in production use is completely different from enabling assertions during dynamic analysis (such as testing). In some cases enabling assertions in production use is extremely unwise (especially in high-integrity components). There are many arguments against enabling assertions in production, e.g., libraries should not crash callers, their presence may cause rejection by app stores, and/or activating an assertion in production may expose private data such as private keys. Beware that in many Linux distributions NDEBUG is not defined, so C/C++ assert() will by default be enabled for production in those environments. It may be important to use a different assertion mechanism or defining NDEBUG for production in those environments.

    Assertions are extensively used throughout the codebase and enabled under the dynamic-analysis runtime:

    • debug_assert! annotations on internal kernel invariants (e.g., Fixed::rescale_down order-of-arguments, wide_ln2/wide_ln10 working-scale bounds, mantissa range after reduction).
    • assert! for caller-contract checks (e.g., D38::ln_strict argument-must-be-positive).
    • Test runtime activates debug_assertions by default (cargo test builds in debug mode), so every assertion fires during the dynamic test sweep. The precision (0.5 ULP gate) workflow also runs
      a separate --release pass for production-codegen coverage.
    • Release builds compile out debug_assert! for zero runtime cost (the OpenSSF rule's "should not be enabled in production builds" recommendation is satisfied by Rust's standard
      debug_assertions cfg).


    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [dynamic_analysis_fixed]
    If you are not running dynamic code analysis and thus have not found any vulnerabilities in this way, choose "not applicable" (N/A). A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known.

    No medium- or higher-severity findings have been reported by either dynamic-analysis tool (Valgrind under CodSpeed, or the Rust test runner under debug_assertions). The criterion would apply
    if a finding emerged; with none on record, the obligation to fix is vacuously satisfied.



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 Jack and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Jack.
Entry created on 2026-05-19 00:25:26 UTC, last updated on 2026-05-21 01:38:00 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-05-19 01:05:34 UTC.