zscalerctl

Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) best practices badge.

There is no set of practices that can guarantee that software will never have defects or vulnerabilities; even formal methods can fail if the specifications or assumptions are wrong. Nor is there any set of practices that can guarantee that a project will sustain a healthy and well-functioning development community. However, following best practices can help improve the results of projects. For example, some practices enable multi-person review before release, which can both help find otherwise hard-to-find technical vulnerabilities and help build trust and a desire for repeated interaction among developers from different companies. To earn a badge, all MUST and MUST NOT criteria must be met, all SHOULD criteria must be met OR be unmet with justification, and all SUGGESTED criteria must be met OR unmet (we want them considered at least). If you want to enter justification text as a generic comment, instead of being a rationale that the situation is acceptable, start the text block with '//' followed by a space. Feedback is welcome via the GitHub site as issues or pull requests There is also a mailing list for general discussion.

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 13176 is baseline-3 Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13176/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13176)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13176"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13176/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 2 criteria. These are criteria version v2026.02.19.

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

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    Unofficial, security-first, read-only CLI for authorized Zscaler administrators: safe configuration query, inventory, and sanitized exports across ZIA, ZPA, ZTW, ZCC, and Zidentity. Every output field is explicitly classified through fail-closed allow-list projection, with redaction and secret scanning as defense-in-depth.

    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.

    zscalerctl is defensive administration software for authorized Zscaler tenant
    admins — explicitly not an exploitation, credential-discovery, or bypass tool.

    Security posture highlights, each enforced by CI rather than asserted:

    • Fail-closed field classification — every SDK response field is either
      explicitly classified or deliberately excluded with a recorded reason;
      the build fails if a field ships undecided
      (FIELD_COVERAGE.md).
    • Threat model and data classification are documented and kept current by
      drift tests (THREAT_MODEL.md).
    • Releases ship checksums, per-target CycloneDX SBOMs, and GitHub build
      provenance attestations.
    • Single-maintainer project; review depth comes from the CI gate
      (tests, race detector, staticcheck, govulncheck, semgrep, secret scan)
      plus advisory CodeQL/gosec/Scorecard scanning.

 Controls 19/19 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

    When a CI/CD task is executed with no permissions specified, the CI/CD system MUST default the task's permissions to the lowest permissions granted in the pipeline. [OSPS-AC-04.01]
    Configure the project's settings to assign the lowest available permissions to new pipelines by default, granting additional permissions only when necessary for specific tasks.

    Every workflow declares least-privilege permissions at the top level (contents: read default), so any job without its own permissions block inherits the restricted set, not the repository default. Scorecard's Token-Permissions check scores 10/10.


    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, that release MUST be assigned a unique version identifier. [OSPS-BR-02.01]
    Assign a unique version identifier to each release produced by the project, following a consistent naming convention or numbering scheme. Examples include SemVer, CalVer, or git commit id.

    Every release gets a unique vMAJOR.MINOR.PATCH tag computed by the release workflow, which refuses to proceed if the tag already exists on a different commit.


    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, that release MUST contain a descriptive log of functional and security modifications. [OSPS-BR-04.01]
    Ensure that all releases include a descriptive change log. It is recommended to ensure that the change log is human-readable and includes details beyond commit messages, such as descriptions of the security impact or relevance to different use cases. To ensure machine readability, place the content under a markdown header such as "## Changelog".

    Each GitHub release carries an auto-generated "What's Changed" log of merged PRs; the versioning policy (docs/VERSIONING.md) requires security-relevant changes (e.g. redaction behavior) to be called out in the notes.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a build and release pipeline ingests dependencies, it MUST use standardized tooling where available. [OSPS-BR-05.01]
    Use a common tooling for your ecosystem, such as package managers or dependency management tools to ingest dependencies at build time. This may include using a dependency file, lock file, or manifest to specify the required dependencies, which are then pulled in by the build system.

    Dependencies are ingested exclusively through standardized tooling: Go modules with go.sum hash verification (vendored in-repo), pip with --require-hashes for the one Python tool, and SHA-pinned GitHub Actions.


    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, that release MUST be signed or accounted for in a signed manifest including each asset's cryptographic hashes. [OSPS-BR-06.01]
    Sign all released software assets at build time with a cryptographic signature or attestations, such as GPG or PGP signature, Sigstore signatures, SLSA provenance, or SLSA VSAs. Include the cryptographic hashes of each asset in a signed manifest or metadata file.

    Every release publishes SHA256SUMS covering all assets, and a GitHub build-provenance attestation (Sigstore-signed, generated in the release workflow) covers that checksum manifest — verifiable with gh attestation verify.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include a description of how the project selects, obtains, and tracks its dependencies. [OSPS-DO-06.01]
    It is recommended to publish this information alongside the project's technical & design documentation on a publicly viewable resource such as the source code repository, project website, or other channel.

    docs/DEPENDENCY_POLICY.md documents how dependencies are selected, pinned, vendored, hash-verified, and tracked (Renovate for routine updates, with per-module ownership documented).


    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST include instructions on how to build the software, including required libraries, frameworks, SDKs, and dependencies. [OSPS-DO-07.01]
    It is recommended to publish this information alongside the project's contributor documentation, such as in CONTRIBUTING.md or other developer task documentation. This may also be documented using Makefile targets or other automation scripts.

    README and docs/INSTALL.md document the build (go install ./cmd/zscalerctl); all library dependencies are vendored in-repo, so the only build requirement is the Go toolchain.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a list of project members with access to sensitive resources. [OSPS-GV-01.01]
    Document project participants and their roles through such artifacts as members.md, governance.md, maintainers.md, or similar file within the source code repository of the project. This may be as simple as including names or account handles in a list of maintainers, or more complex depending on the project's governance.

    SECURITY.md's "Project Roles" section documents that the repository owner is the sole person with privileged access.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include descriptions of the roles and responsibilities for members of the project. [OSPS-GV-01.02]
    Document project participants and their roles through such artifacts as members.md, governance.md, maintainers.md, or similar file within the source code repository of the project.

    SECURITY.md documents the single-maintainer role set: development, review (enforced via the required CI gate), release approval, and security response.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a guide for code contributors that includes requirements for acceptable contributions. [OSPS-GV-03.02]
    Extend the CONTRIBUTING.md or CONTRIBUTING/ contents in the project documentation to outline the requirements for acceptable contributions, including coding standards, testing requirements, and submission guidelines for code contributors. It is recommended that this guide is the source of truth for both contributors and approvers.

    The README "Contributing" section states acceptance requirements: discuss in an issue first, pass make check, carry exactly one semver:* label, and include tests for new functionality.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the version control system MUST require all code contributors to assert that they are legally authorized to make the associated contributions on every commit. [OSPS-LE-01.01]
    Include a DCO in the project's repository, requiring code contributors to assert that they are legally authorized to commit the associated contributions on every commit. Use a status check to ensure the assertion is made. A CLA also satisfies this requirement. Some version control systems, such as GitHub, may include this in the platform terms of service.

    All contributions arrive through GitHub, whose Terms of Service (§D.6, "inbound=outbound") require every contributor to have the right to license their contribution under the repository's license as a condition of contributing.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a commit is made to the primary branch, any automated status checks for commits MUST pass or be manually bypassed. [OSPS-QA-03.01]
    Configure the project's version control system to require that all automated status checks pass or require manual acknowledgement before a commit can be merged into the primary branch. It is recommended that any optional status checks are NOT configured as a pass or fail requirement that approvers may be tempted to bypass.

    Branch protection on main requires the aggregate required status check to pass before merge, with "include administrators" enabled — there is no silent bypass path.


    Enough for a badge!

    Prior to a commit being accepted, the project's CI/CD pipelines MUST run at least one automated test suite to ensure the changes meet expectations. [OSPS-QA-06.01]
    Automated tests should be run prior to every merge into the primary branch. The test suite should be run in a CI/CD pipeline and the results should be visible to all contributors. The test suite should be run in a consistent environment and should be run in a way that allows contributors to run the tests locally. Examples of test suites include unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end tests.

    Every PR must pass the full automated suite before merge: go test ./... plus the race detector across all packages, vet/staticcheck/govulncheck/semgrep, and secret scanning, aggregated into the required CI check.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include design documentation demonstrating all actions and actors within the system. [OSPS-SA-01.01]
    Include designs in the project documentation that explains the actions and actors. Actors include any subsystem or entity that can influence another segment in the system. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    docs/ARCHITECTURE.md documents the system's components and data path, and docs/THREAT_MODEL.md explicitly enumerates the actors, trust boundaries, and controls.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include descriptions of all external software interfaces of the released software assets. [OSPS-SA-02.01]
    Document all software interfaces (APIs) of the released software assets, explaining how users can interact with the software and what data is expected or produced. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    All external interfaces are documented: the CLI surface and stable exit codes (README + man page), every resource (docs/RESOURCES.md), machine-readable output contracts as published JSON Schemas (docs/schema/), and the Zscaler API boundary (docs/ARCHITECTURE.md).


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project MUST perform a security assessment to understand the most likely and impactful potential security problems that could occur within the software. [OSPS-SA-03.01]
    Performing a security assessment informs both project members as well as downstream consumers that the project understands what problems could arise within the software. Understanding what threats could be realized helps the project manage and address risk. This information is useful to downstream consumers to demonstrate the security acumen and practices of the project. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    The project maintains a written security assessment in docs/THREAT_MODEL.md (objectives, actors, boundaries, controls, scope decisions) and docs/DATA_CLASSIFICATION.md, supplemented by continuous SAST (CodeQL, gosec, semgrep) and weekly fuzzing of the redaction/projection core.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy for coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD), with a clear timeframe for response. [OSPS-VM-01.01]
    Create a SECURITY.md file at the root of the directory, outlining the project's policy for coordinated vulnerability disclosure. Include a method for reporting vulnerabilities. Set expectations for how the project will respond and address reported issues.

    SECURITY.md documents the coordinated disclosure policy: private reporting channel, 7-day acknowledgment, 14-day initial assessment, public disclosure via GitHub Security Advisories.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST provide a means for private vulnerability reporting directly to the security contacts within the project. [OSPS-VM-03.01]
    Provide a means for security researchers to report vulnerabilities privately to the project. This may be a dedicated email address, a web form, VCS specialized tools, email addresses for security contacts, or other methods.

    SECURITY.md provides a private reporting channel (email) directly to the security contact, with explicit instructions not to open public issues.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST publicly publish data about discovered vulnerabilities. [OSPS-VM-04.01]
    Provide information about known vulnerabilities in a predictable public channel, such as a CVE entry, blog post, or other medium. To the degree possible, this information should include affected version(s), how a consumer can determine if they are vulnerable, and instructions for mitigation or remediation.

    No vulnerabilities have been discovered to date; SECURITY.md commits to publishing fixed vulnerabilities via GitHub Security Advisories and identifying them in release notes.



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 Dave Murray and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Dave Murray.
Entry created on 2026-06-12 11:15:24 UTC, last updated on 2026-06-12 12:27:39 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-06-12 12:27:39 UTC.