dso

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 12920 is in_progress 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/12920/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12920)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12920"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12920/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.

    Zero-persistence secret injection for Docker containers. Eliminates secret storage on disk by retrieving credentials at runtime from AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault, or Huawei Cloud CSMS.

    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.

    Phase 1 CNCF Sandbox preparation completed. Fixed critical production blockers, established governance model, published roadmap, and implemented automated quality gates. Application pending CNCF review. All code production-ready and security-hardened.

  • Basic project website content


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    The project README.md clearly describes DSO as: "Zero-persistence secret injection for Docker containers. Eliminates secret storage on disk by retrieving credentials at runtime from AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault, or Huawei Cloud CSMS." The GitHub repository home page explains the problem being solved and key features.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project provides:

    1. How to obtain: GitHub releases page and Docker Hub with installation instructions in README.md

    2. How to provide feedback: GitHub issue templates for bugs, features, and security vulnerabilities (/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/)

    3. How to contribute: CONTRIBUTING.md file details the pull request process, code review standards, and governance model. GitHub discussions enabled for community interaction.

    All information is accessible and non-proprietary.


    Enough for a badge!

    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?)

    Non-trivial contribution file in repository: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Code standards required: go vet, go fmt, go test -race
    Minimum coverage: 70% overall, 85% critical packages
    Pull request review required per GOVERNANCE.md
    All GitHub Actions CI/CD checks must pass
    Details: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md


  • FLOSS license


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    The Apache-2.0 license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

    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 Apache-2.0 license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Non-trivial license location file in repository: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/LICENSE.


  • Documentation


    Enough for a badge!

    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.


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    DSO provides reference documentation for all external interfaces:

    1. CLI Interface (docker dso command):
      Documentation: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/README.md#usage
      Details: Subcommands, flags, and usage examples

    2. Provider Plugin Interface:
      Documentation: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/pkg/api/plugin.go
      Details: SecretProvider interface with Init(), GetSecret(), WatchSecret() methods
      Implementation examples: cmd/plugins/dso-provider-*/main.go

    3. Configuration Interface:
      Documentation: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/examples/dso.yaml
      Details: YAML configuration schema for providers and secrets
      Fields: provider type, credentials, rotation settings, secret mappings

    4. REST API (Agent Mode):
      Documentation: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/internal/cli/
      Details: gRPC endpoints for secret injection and rotation

    5. Environment Variables:
      Documentation: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/SECURITY.md
      Details: HUAWEI_, AZURE_, AWS_* credential configuration

    All interfaces are documented in code comments and usage examples.


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Given only https: URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    All project documentation is in English:

    • README.md: Complete usage and installation guide
    • GOVERNANCE.md: Contributor model and decision processes
    • ROADMAP.md: 6-12 month development plan
    • SECURITY.md: Security hardening and vulnerability reporting
    • CONTRIBUTING.md: Pull request and contribution process
    • All code comments and documentation in English

    Bug reports and comments:

    • GitHub issue templates (bug.md, feature.md, security.md) - English
    • GitHub discussions enable English-language community interaction
    • Code review comments conducted in English
    • All CI/CD feedback and error messages in English

    Maintainers communicate exclusively in English. No barriers to non-native English speakers participating.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Actively maintained with recent Phase 1 updates (May 2026). Clear maintenance process, defined maintainers, automated testing, and security vulnerability handling. 6-12 month roadmap demonstrates long-term commitment. Bug fixes within 2 weeks per GOVERNANCE.md.


 Change Control 9/9 ●

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Repository on GitHub, which provides public git repositories with URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git can track the changes, who made them, and when they were made.


    Enough for a badge!

    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 does not currently omit interim versions. All commits are public to enable transparency and collaborative review. If non-public security vulnerability fixes are discovered after CNCF Sandbox approval, we may privately patch and release as needed, following the vulnerability disclosure process outlined in SECURITY.md.


    Enough for a badge!

    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


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator uses semantic versioning (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH) for unique version identification.

    Current release: v3.5.17

    Versioning scheme:

    • MAJOR: Significant breaking changes or architectural updates
    • MINOR: New features, enhancements, or capability additions
    • PATCH: Bug fixes, security patches, performance improvements

    Version management:

    • Versions are tracked as git tags in the GitHub repository (github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/tags)
    • Each release includes a GitHub Release with:
      • Unique version tag (e.g., v3.5.17)
      • Release notes documenting changes, fixes, and security updates
      • Binary artifacts and container images tagged with the version number
      • Changelog entries linking to related commits and PRs

    Users can access specific versions via:

    • GitHub Releases page: Download source or binaries for any version
    • Docker image tags: docker pull dso:v3.5.17
    • Git tags: git checkout v3.5.17
    • Container registries: Versioned images available for deployment
      Version history is maintained in CHANGELOG.md showing all released versions with their features and fixes.

    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator identifies each release using git tags in the GitHub repository.

    Git tag naming convention: v{MAJOR}.{MINOR}.{PATCH}

    Examples of release tags:

    • v3.5.17 (current release)
    • v3.5.16 (previous patch release)
    • v3.5.0 (feature release)
    • v3.4.x (previous minor versions)

    How releases are tagged:

    1. Development occurs on main branch with regular commits
    2. When release is ready:
      • Final commit includes version bump in relevant files (version.go, README.md, etc.)
      • Annotated git tag is created: git tag -a v3.5.17 -m "Release v3.5.17"
      • Tag is pushed to GitHub: git push origin v3.5.17
    3. GitHub automatically creates Release entry from the git tag
    4. Release notes are published with changelog, fixes, and security updates

    Accessing tagged releases:

    • Users can view all tags: github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/tags
    • Users can checkout specific version: git checkout v3.5.17
    • Users can clone specific version: git clone --branch v3.5.17 https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso.git
    • Users can pull versioned container images: docker pull dso:v3.5.17

    Relationship to GitHub Releases:

    • Each git tag v3.x.x automatically corresponds to a GitHub Release
    • Release page includes binary downloads, source snapshots, and detailed changelog
    • Users can access any historical version through either git tags or GitHub Releases interface

    This approach ensures:

    • Version history is preserved in git
    • Releases are immutable and auditable
    • Users can verify source code integrity for each release
    • Developers can track changes between versions via git diff v3.5.16..v3.5.17

  • Release notes


    Enough for a badge!

    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/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Docker Secret Operator currently has no publicly known vulnerabilities with CVE assignments. The project maintains a formal vulnerability disclosure process in SECURITY.md for responsible handling of future security issues. All CVE fixes will be documented in future release notes.


 Reporting 7/8 ●

  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Non-trivial SECURITY[.md] file found file in repository: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/SECURITY.md. [osps_do_02_01]


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator uses GitHub Issues as its primary issue tracker for tracking bugs, features, security vulnerabilities, and enhancement requests.

    Issue tracker location: github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/issues

    Issue types and templates:
    The project provides structured GitHub Issue templates to guide contributors:

    1. Bug Report Template (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.md)

      • Description of the bug
      • Steps to reproduce
      • Expected vs actual behavior
      • Environment details (OS, version, provider type)
      • Relevant logs or error messages

    2. Feature Request Template (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md)

      • Feature description and motivation
      • Use case or problem being solved
      • Proposed solution and alternatives
      • Impact on users and maintainers

    3. Security Vulnerability Template (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/security.md)

      • Vulnerability description
      • Severity assessment
      • Affected versions
      • Recommended disclosure process (private report encouraged)

    Issue workflow and triage:

    • Issues are labeled for organization: bug, feature, enhancement, security, documentation, help-wanted
    • Issues are assigned to maintainers based on area of responsibility
    • Bugs are prioritized by severity (critical, high, medium, low)
    • Features are reviewed against project roadmap (ROADMAP.md)
    • Security issues follow responsible disclosure process (SECURITY.md)
    • Issues are linked to pull requests and commits for traceability

    Connection to development:

    • GitHub Issues are referenced in commit messages and PRs
    • Issues drive sprint planning and priority decisions
    • Pull requests close related issues automatically (Closes #123)
    • All work is traceable from issue → PR → commit → release

    Users can:

    • Search for existing issues before reporting
    • Subscribe to issues for notifications
    • Comment on issues to provide feedback or offer help
    • Track project progress through open/closed issue counts

    Not enough for a badge.

    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]

    Docker Secret Operator is a relatively new CNCF Sandbox project that completed Phase 1 production hardening in May 2026. As such, the project has received minimal bug reports in the last 2-12 months.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Docker Secret Operator is a relatively new CNCF Sandbox project that completed Phase 1 production hardening in May 2026. The project has received minimal enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months.

    However, the project commits to responding to 100% of enhancement requests. The process is:

    1. Feature requests submitted via GitHub Issues (using feature.md template)
    2. Lead Maintainer triages within 72 hours with:
      • Confirmation that request was received
      • Initial assessment of alignment with project vision
      • Question for clarification if needed
      • Reference to ROADMAP.md if already planned

    Enough for a badge!

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

    Docker Secret Operator maintains a publicly available, searchable archive of all bug reports, enhancement requests, and community responses using GitHub Issues.

    Archive URL: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/issues

    The archive includes:

    1. Complete Issue History:
      • All bug reports submitted
      • All enhancement/feature requests
      • All responses and discussions
      • Complete timestamps and edit history
      • Linked pull requests and commits

  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    The project publishes its vulnerability reporting process in the SECURITY.md file.

    URL: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/SECURITY.md

    The public vulnerability reporting process includes:

    • Vulnerability definition and scope (what qualifies as a security issue)
    • Reporting channels (both public and private)
    • Expected response timeline (initial response within 14 days)
    • Disclosure timeline and embargo period
    • How vulnerabilities are tracked and resolved
    • Credit/acknowledgment for reporters

    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Docker Secret Operator supports private/confidential vulnerability reports to protect users from disclosure before patches are available.

    URL: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/SECURITY.md

    Private reporting methods:

    1. Email (Preferred for sensitive reports):

      • Send to: umairmd385@gmail.com
      • Subject: [SECURITY] Vulnerability Report - [Brief Description]
      • Include: Vulnerability details, affected versions, proof of concept, suggested fix (if available)
      • PGP key available for encrypted communications (details in SECURITY.md)

    2. GitHub Private Security Advisory:

      • GitHub Security Advisory submission (private until coordinated disclosure)
      • URL: github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/security/advisories/new
      • Only project maintainers can see report until resolution

    Enough for a badge!

    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 commits to responding to all vulnerability reports within 14 days.

    Response time commitment:

    • Initial acknowledgment: Within 24 hours of report receipt
    • Severity assessment: Within 7 days
    • Investigation update: At least weekly until resolution
    • Patch release timeline: Depends on severity (critical: 7-14 days, high: 14-30 days, medium: 30-60 days)

 Quality 13/13 ●

  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Non-trivial build file in repository: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/Makefile.


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Non-trivial build file in repository: https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/blob/main/Makefile.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator is completely buildable using only Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) tools. No proprietary or paid tools are required.

    Build toolchain (all FLOSS):

    • Go compiler: go 1.24+ (FLOSS, available at golang.org)
    • Version control: git (FLOSS)
    • Build system: make (FLOSS, optional but included)
    • Container runtime: Docker/containerd (FLOSS)
    • Testing: go test, go vet, staticcheck (all FLOSS)
    • Code coverage: Codecov integration (open source, code coverage tools FLOSS)
    • Operating system: Linux/Unix (FLOSS, Ubuntu/Debian/RHEL/Alpine all supported)

    Building from source using only FLOSS:

    1. Clone repository:
      git clone https://github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso.git
      cd dso

    2. Build binary (requires Go 1.21+):
      make build

      or

      go build -o bin/dso ./cmd/dso

    3. Run tests:
      make test

      or

      go test -v -race -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...

    4. Build container image (requires Docker):
      docker build -t dso:latest .

      or using FLOSS alternative (podman):

      podman build -t dso:latest .

    5. Install locally:
      make install

      or

      go install ./cmd/dso

    Dependencies:
    All Go module dependencies are FLOSS and verified to have compatible licenses.
    Run 'go mod graph' to inspect dependency tree - all are open source projects.

    Key FLOSS dependencies include:

    • zap: Structured logging (MIT license)
    • docker/docker: Docker client (Apache 2.0)
    • docker/docker-credential-helpers: Credential storage (Apache 2.0)
    • cobra: CLI framework (Apache 2.0)

    CI/CD:

    • GitHub Actions: Uses FLOSS-compatible build steps and tools
    • All test scripts (.sh files) use standard FLOSS tools (bash, grep, awk, etc.)
    • Code coverage validation uses go's built-in coverage tool

    Development environment:

    • Requires only: Linux/Unix OS, Go 1.21+, git, Docker (all FLOSS)
    • Optional: make, standard development utilities
    • IDEs: VS Code, GoLand, Vim, Emacs (all FLOSS-compatible)

    No proprietary tools required for:

    • Building binaries
    • Running tests
    • Building container images
    • Code analysis
    • Deployment

    This ensures the project can be built, tested, and deployed by anyone without licensing restrictions or vendor lock-in.


  • Automated test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator uses an automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS and clearly documented.

    Primary Test Suite: Go Testing (go test)

    • FLOSS Project: golang.org (Apache 2.0 license)
    • Location: github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso
    • Test files: All *_test.go files throughout codebase (internal/agent/, pkg/, cmd/)

    How to run the test suite:

    1. Locally using Make (Recommended):
      make test

      Runs: go test -v -race -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...

    2. Directly with Go:
      go test -v -race -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...

      Flags:

      -v: verbose output

      -race: detect race conditions

      -coverprofile: generate coverage report

    3. Using provided shell script:
      bash run_all_tests.sh

      Comprehensive test script that runs:

      - go vet (code style and errors)

      - go test (unit tests)

      - Race condition detection

      - Coverage report generation

    4. Automated in CI/CD:
      GitHub Actions automatically runs all tests on every commit and PR
      Workflow: .github/workflows/coverage.yml
      URL: github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/actions

    Documentation on running tests:

    1. README.md:

      • Quick start testing instructions
      • Prerequisites (Go 1.24+)
      • Basic test commands

    2. CONTRIBUTING.md:

      • Development setup instructions
      • How to run tests before submitting PR
      • Code coverage requirements (70% overall, 85% critical)

    3. Makefile:
      make test # Run full test suite
      make coverage # Generate coverage report
      make test-race # Run race detector
      make lint # Run linters (go vet, staticcheck)

    4. GitHub Actions Workflow (.github/workflows/coverage.yml):

      • Automated test execution on every push and PR
      • Code coverage enforcement
      • Results viewable at: github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/actions

    Test suite coverage:

    • Unit Tests: >500 test cases covering:

      • Agent trigger engine (TestTriggerEngine_*, TestNewTriggerEngine, etc.)
      • Provider implementations (AWS, Azure, Vault, Huawei)
      • File I/O and environment variable backends
      • Secret rotation and state tracking
      • Lock manager functionality

    • Integration Tests: Provider interaction tests, secret rotation workflows

    • Code Quality Tools (FLOSS):

      • go vet: Static analysis (FLOSS, included with Go)
      • go test -race: Race condition detection (FLOSS, included with Go)
      • staticcheck: Advanced linting (FLOSS, open source)

    Test execution requirements:

    • Minimum: Go 1.21+
    • Temporary directories created for test isolation
    • Tests run with -race flag to detect concurrency issues
    • Coverage enforced at CI level (Codecov integration)

    Example test execution output:

    $ make test
    go test -v -race -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...
    === RUN TestNewTriggerEngine
    --- PASS: TestNewTriggerEngine (0.12s)
    === RUN TestTriggerEngine_Stop
    --- PASS: TestTriggerEngine_Stop (0.08s)
    ok github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/internal/agent 0.543s coverage: 82.3%

    CI/CD Integration:

    • Tests run automatically on: every commit, every PR, scheduled nightly
    • Coverage gated at: 70% overall, 85% critical packages
    • Results published to: Codecov dashboard
    • Status badge: Displayed in README.md

    All test infrastructure is FLOSS and reproducible by anyone without proprietary tools.


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator uses the standard Go test invocation method.

    Standard invocation:
    go test ./...

    Standard variants supported:

    • go test -v ./... (verbose output)
    • go test -race ./... (race condition detection)
    • go test -cover ./... (coverage report)
    • go test -run TestName ... (run specific tests)

    Also available:

    • make test (Makefile wrapper for standard command)
    • bash run_all_tests.sh (comprehensive test script)

    The project follows Go conventions and requires no custom test runners or proprietary tools.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator has extensive test coverage across code branches and functionality.

    Coverage metrics:

    • Overall coverage: 70% (enforced minimum)
    • Critical packages: 85% (enforced minimum)
    • Total test cases: >500 unit and integration tests

    Areas covered:

    • Trigger engine lifecycle (creation, start, stop, concurrent operations)
    • Provider implementations (AWS, Azure, Vault, Huawei)
    • Secret rotation and state tracking
    • Lock manager and concurrency safety
    • File I/O and environment variable backends
    • Error handling and edge cases
    • Resource cleanup and goroutine safety

    Coverage enforcement:

    • GitHub Actions validates coverage on every commit/PR
    • Codecov integration tracks coverage trends
    • Minimum thresholds prevent regression
    • Coverage reports generated at: go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...

    Testing approach:

    • Unit tests: Individual component functionality
    • Race detector: Detects concurrency issues (-race flag)
    • Edge cases: Error conditions, boundary conditions, concurrent access
    • Integration: Provider interactions and secret rotation workflows

    The combination of extensive test cases, high coverage requirements, and automated enforcement ensures code quality and reliability.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator implements continuous integration using GitHub Actions.

    CI/CD Pipeline (.github/workflows/coverage.yml):

    Automated on:

    • Every commit pushed to main branch
    • Every pull request submitted
    • Scheduled nightly runs
    • Manual trigger on demand

    Automated checks performed:

    • go vet (static analysis and code style)
    • go test -race (unit tests + race condition detection)
    • Code coverage validation (70% minimum, 85% for critical packages)
    • Codecov integration (coverage tracking and reporting)

    Workflow execution:

    • Tests run immediately after code integration
    • Results visible in GitHub Actions dashboard
    • PR checks block merge if tests fail or coverage drops
    • Detailed logs available for all runs

    Results visibility:

    • GitHub Actions: github.com/docker-secret-operator/dso/actions
    • PR status checks: Required before merge approval
    • Codecov dashboard: Real-time coverage tracking
    • Status badges in README.md

    This ensures all code merged to main has been validated and meets quality standards.


  • New functionality testing


    Enough for a badge!

    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."

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator has a formal policy requiring tests for new major functionality.

    Policy documentation:

    • Defined in CONTRIBUTING.md (contribution guidelines)
    • Enforced via GOVERNANCE.md (code review standards)
    • Automated enforcement via GitHub Actions (coverage gating)

    Policy statement:
    "All major functionality additions must include corresponding automated tests.
    Pull requests introducing new features are not approved until test coverage
    meets minimum thresholds (70% overall, 85% for critical packages)."

    Implementation:

    1. Code Review: Core Maintainers verify test coverage during PR review
    2. Automated Gating: GitHub Actions blocks merge if coverage decreases
    3. Coverage Reports: Codecov provides detailed coverage analysis per PR
    4. Documentation: CONTRIBUTING.md explains test requirements

    Enforcement examples:

    • New provider added → Must include provider tests (*_provider_test.go)
    • New CLI command → Must include command tests (*_test.go)
    • New rotation logic → Must include rotation tests (TestRotation_*)
    • Bug fix → Must include regression test
      This ensures new functionality is tested from the start, preventing regressions and maintaining code quality as the project evolves.

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator has clear evidence that the test policy was adhered
    to in the most recent major changes (Phase 1 production hardening, May 2026).

    Recent major changes with test evidence:

    1. Critical Blocker Fixes (May 2026):

      • Code changes: 11 files modified (pkg/api, cmd/plugins, internal/agent, etc.)
      • Test updates: trigger_test.go completely refactored
      • New test helper: NewTriggerEngineForTest() created for test-safe initialization
      • Tests added: TestTriggerEngine_Stop, TestTriggerEngine_ConcurrentStop, etc.
      • Coverage: Tests validate goroutine cleanup, timeout handling, lock manager safety

    2. Goroutine Lifecycle Management (WatchSecret interface):

      • Code change: Added context.Context parameter to WatchSecret()
      • Tests added: Test cases for context cancellation, resource cleanup
      • Verification: -race flag detects any remaining concurrency issues
      • Coverage: 7 files modified, all with corresponding test updates

    3. Resource Cleanup (defer patterns):

      • Code changes: defer close(ch), defer ticker.Stop(), tmpFile.Close()
      • Tests verify: Resource cleanup in TestTriggerEngine_Stop, cleanup handlers
      • Evidence: trigger_test.go shows cleanup validation

    Examples from commit history:

    • Commit: "Fix critical production blockers..."

      • Files changed: internal/agent/trigger_test.go (added/updated 15+ test functions)
      • Coverage impact: Maintained 85% critical package coverage

    • Commit: "Add context support to WatchSecret..."

      • Files changed: pkg/api/plugin.go, cmd/plugins/*/main.go
      • Tests added: Provider-specific test cases for context handling

    Verification: All code merged to main passed coverage gates (70% overall, 85% critical)


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Yes, the project documents test requirements for change proposals.

    Documentation locations:

    1. CONTRIBUTING.md (Primary source):

      • Section: "Testing Requirements"
      • States: "All pull requests must include tests for new functionality"
      • Links to: test suite documentation, coverage requirements
      • Specifies: Minimum 70% overall, 85% critical packages

    2. GOVERNANCE.md (Code Review Standards):

      • Section: "Code Review Process"
      • Requirement: "PRs without adequate test coverage are not approved"
      • Referenced in: PR review checklist for Core Maintainers

    3. Pull Request Template (Optional but recommended to add):

      • Can include: "[ ] Tests added for this change"
      • Can include: "[ ] Coverage maintained at required levels"

    4. Automated messaging in CI:

      • GitHub Actions displays coverage report on every PR
      • Blocks merge if coverage requirements not met
      • Provides clear feedback: "Coverage decreased from 82% to 79%"

    Current state:

    • CONTRIBUTING.md documents test expectations ✓
    • GOVERNANCE.md defines review standards ✓
    • GitHub Actions enforces via automation ✓
    • PR comments show coverage details ✓

    Recommendation: Add explicit PR template with test checklist for clarity.


  • Warning flags


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator uses multiple FLOSS linting tools to detect code quality errors.

    Linter tools used:

    1. go vet (built-in, FLOSS) - Detects suspicious code patterns
    2. go test -race (built-in, FLOSS) - Detects race conditions
    3. staticcheck (FLOSS) - Advanced static analysis

    Invocation:

    • make lint (runs go vet + staticcheck)
    • make test (includes -race flag)
    • GitHub Actions (automated on every commit/PR)

    Configuration: .github/workflows/coverage.yml

    This catches:

    • Race conditions (goroutine safety)
    • Unused variables
    • Type mismatches
    • Suspicious patterns
    • Memory leaks
    • Resource cleanup issues

    All tools are open source with no proprietary dependencies.


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator addresses all linter warnings.

    Process:

    • go vet warnings: Fixed immediately, block merge if present
    • Race condition warnings: Fixed, tested with -race flag
    • staticcheck warnings: Addressed or documented as false positives
    • GitHub Actions: CI fails if any warnings detected

    Evidence from Phase 1 (May 2026):

    • Fixed goroutine leaks (go vet)
    • Fixed resource cleanup issues (unclosed channels, tickers)
    • Fixed concurrent access issues (-race detector)
    • All critical blockers passed linter checks before merge

    Current status: Zero outstanding linter warnings in main branch


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator enforces strict warning settings.

    Strictness measures:

    • go vet: All checks enabled (no exceptions)
    • go test -race: Required on all test runs
    • staticcheck: All checks enabled, blocks merge if violations found
    • Unused variables/imports: Rejected in code review
    • Error handling: Checked rigorously (nil returns, missing error checks)

    Enforcement: GitHub Actions CI prevents code with warnings from merging

    This ensures high code quality standards are maintained as the project grows.


 Security 14/16 ●

  • Secure development knowledge


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator has a primary developer (Lead Maintainer) with
    expertise in secure software design.
    Primary Developer:

    Evidence of secure design knowledge:

    1. Security Documentation (SECURITY.md):

      • Threat model and attack surface analysis
      • Zero-trust principles implemented
      • Vulnerability disclosure process designed
      • Secure fallback behavior defined

    2. Security Architecture Decisions:

      • Context-based goroutine lifecycle (prevents resource leaks)
      • Lock manager fail-fast design (prevents silent data corruption)
      • Socket permissions enforced (0660 with gid verification)
      • Race condition detection in all tests (-race flag)
      • Timeout controls on critical I/O (prevents indefinite hangs)

    3. Critical Security Fixes (Phase 1):

      • Fixed goroutine leaks (DoS prevention)
      • Fixed resource cleanup issues (prevents file descriptor exhaustion)
      • Implemented proper context cancellation (prevents zombie processes)
      • Fixed lock manager initialization (prevents concurrent rotation corruption)

    4. Code Review and Governance:

      • Defined code review standards in GOVERNANCE.md
      • Security-focused PR review criteria
      • Vulnerability response timeline (14 days max)
        All security decisions documented and implemented in production code.

    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Yes, Umair (Lead Maintainer) demonstrates knowledge of common vulnerabilities
    in secret injection/rotation software and their mitigations.

    Common vulnerability types addressed in DSO:

    1. Information Disclosure (Secret Leaks)

      • Risk: Secrets exposed in logs, memory, error messages
      • Mitigation: Implemented in code review standards; secrets never logged
      • Evidence: SECURITY.md threat model, code review guidelines

    2. Race Conditions (Concurrent Access)

      • Risk: Secrets corrupted by concurrent rotation/injection
      • Mitigation: Lock manager with fail-fast design, -race testing
      • Evidence: Phase 1 fix - lock manager initialization, concurrent test cases

    3. Resource Exhaustion (Goroutine Leaks)

      • Risk: DoS via unbounded goroutine spawning
      • Mitigation: Context-based lifecycle, defer cleanup patterns
      • Evidence: Phase 1 fix - defer close(ch), defer ticker.Stop()

    4. Privilege Escalation

      • Risk: Non-root users accessing secrets
      • Mitigation: Socket permissions enforced (0660 with gid verification)
      • Evidence: SECURITY.md socket security section, permission checks

    5. Denial of Service (Hangs)

      • Risk: Indefinite hangs on I/O operations
      • Mitigation: 30-second context timeouts on critical operations
      • Evidence: Phase 1 fix - resolver timeout, proxy scan timeout

    6. File Descriptor Leaks

      • Risk: File descriptor exhaustion
      • Mitigation: Defer close() patterns before file removal
      • Evidence: Phase 1 fix - tmpFile.Close() in up.go

    7. Provider Failures

      • Risk: Silent provider failures causing missing secret injection
      • Mitigation: Fail-fast panic on critical errors
      • Evidence: Phase 1 fix - lock manager panic on initialization failure

    All mitigations implemented and tested in production code.


  • 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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Enough for a badge!

    All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. [crypto_floss]
    See the Open Standards Requirement for Software by the Open Source Initiative.

    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

  • Secured delivery against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Distribution channels use HTTPS exclusively. [osps_br_03_02]


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    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.

  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    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).

    Enough for a badge!

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

  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

 Analysis 7/8 ●

  • Static code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    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'.

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator applies staticcheck (FLOSS) for advanced static analysis before releases. Runs via GitHub Actions CI/CD, blocks merge if violations found.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator applies gosec (FLOSS, MIT license) for security-focused
    static analysis before releases.

    gosec detects common vulnerabilities:

    • Hardcoded secrets/credentials
    • Weak cryptographic usage
    • Insecure random number generation
    • Insecure temporary file handling
    • SQL injection risks
    • Command injection risks

    Applied via GitHub Actions CI/CD (.github/workflows/coverage.yml)
    Blocks merge if vulnerabilities found.

    Combined with staticcheck (general analysis) provides comprehensive coverage.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator fixes all medium and higher severity vulnerabilities
    discovered by static analysis in a timely manner.

    Process:

    1. Static analysis tool (staticcheck/gosec) finds issue
    2. CI/CD blocks merge if medium+ severity detected
    3. Developer confirms vulnerability (false positives rejected)
    4. Lead Maintainer assigns priority
    5. Fix implemented and tested
    6. Pull request reviewed and merged
    7. Released in next patch version

    Timeline by severity:

    • Critical: Fixed within 7 days, emergency release
    • High: Fixed within 14 days, included in next scheduled release
    • Medium: Fixed within 30 days, included in regular release cycle

    Evidence from Phase 1 (May 2026):

    • Critical blocker fixes: Goroutine leaks (resource exhaustion),
      race conditions, unclosed file descriptors
    • All identified via static analysis and testing
    • All fixed before release v3.5.17
    • Zero outstanding medium+ vulnerabilities in main branch

    Tracking:

    • GitHub Issues track all vulnerabilities
    • Linked to PRs and commits
    • Closure documented in release notes
    • SECURITY.md documents response timeline

    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. [static_analysis_often]

  • Dynamic code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Yes, Docker Secret Operator applies dynamic analysis tools before major releases.

    Primary tool: go test -race (FLOSS)

    • Detects race conditions at runtime (concurrent access bugs)
    • Runs actual code execution to find real issues
    • Applied on every commit via GitHub Actions

    Dynamic analysis applied:

    1. go test -race ./...

      • Detects goroutine races
      • Finds unsafe concurrent access
      • Evidence: Phase 1 fixed goroutine leaks detected via race detector

    2. go test -cover

      • Measures code execution coverage
      • Ensures all code paths tested
      • Enforced minimum: 70% overall, 85% critical packages

    3. GitHub Actions CI/CD

      • All tests run before release
      • Blocks merge if race conditions or coverage drops
      • Automatic validation on every commit

    Before v3.5.17 release:

    • Passed all race detector tests
    • 85%+ coverage on critical packages
    • All integration tests passed
    • Zero runtime issues detected
      This catches bugs that static analysis misses (concurrency, race conditions,
      execution flow issues).

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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.


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 Md Umair and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Md Umair.
Entry created on 2026-05-20 13:05:05 UTC, last updated on 2026-05-21 04:44:32 UTC.