Libellus Potionis

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 13480 is passing Here is how to embed it:
You can show your badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Best Practices](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13480/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13480)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13480"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13480/badge"></a>


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

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

        

 Basics 16/17

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    Libellus Potionis is a privacy-first, free, open-source, ad-free alcohol-consumption tracker that helps users monitor, pace, and manage their drinking habits entirely offline. It needs no invasive device permissions — no camera, microphone, or location access — and works completely without network connectivity.

    Key features

    • Intelligent logging: predefine custom beverages or use internationally common presets, and log drinks instantly or retroactively with precise timestamp corrections.
    • Concurrent limit tracking: set three simultaneous boundaries — a daily limit (grams of pure alcohol), a rolling 7-day weekly limit (grams), and a maximum number of drinking days per week — with visual progress bars in real time.
    • Blood-alcohol (BAC) estimation: enter your body weight for a live BAC approximation based on the established Widmark formula.
    • Addiction-counseling reports: generate a clear, well-organized two-page PDF report designed for consultations and counseling appointments.
    • Data portability: export your complete dataset as a standard CSV file for external processing (e.g. in LibreOffice Calc), or create secure JSON backups to migrate data between devices.
    • Granular adjustments: customize your "day start" time so late-night drinks count toward the correct evening, and define custom evaluation start dates for clean restarts.

    A comprehensive User's Guide is fully accessible in-app. The app is available on F-Droid.

    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.

    Libellus Potionis is a privacy-first, offline, ad-free Android app for tracking, pacing, and managing alcohol consumption. It requests no network permission and no camera/microphone/location access; all data stays on the device in the app's private, sandboxed storage, encrypted at rest (AES-256-GCM via the Android Keystore), with an optional biometric lock. It is Free Software under GPL-3.0-or-later, developed openly on Codeberg and distributed through F-Droid. The project is deliberately maintained as a teaching-quality codebase: every source file carries a license header and KDoc, and a release gate (tools/release-check.sh) enforces documentation, version consistency, English-only source, and translation completeness. Quality is guarded by a broad automated test suite (JVM unit tests plus instrumented Room-migration, Compose-UI, and locale tests) and by Android Lint and Kotlin compiler warnings promoted to build-breaking errors.

  • Prerequisites


    The project MUST achieve a passing level badge. [achieve_passing]

  • Basic project website content


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

    CONTRIBUTING.md documents the requirements for acceptable contributions. Section 2 ("Submitting changes"), step 3, makes them a merge precondition and points to the relevant sections; Section 4 ("Coding conventions") names the required coding standard — the official Kotlin coding conventions — together with mandatory KDoc and constant/default/enum-persistence rules; Sections 3 (architecture) and 5 (testing) add the remaining acceptance rules. ./gradlew test and tools/release-check.sh must pass. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#4-coding-conventions


  • Project oversight


    The project SHOULD have a legal mechanism where all developers of non-trivial amounts of project software assert that they are legally authorized to make these contributions. The most common and easily-implemented approach for doing this is by using a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO), where users add "signed-off-by" in their commits and the project links to the DCO website. However, this MAY be implemented as a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), or other legal mechanism. (URL required) [dco]
    The DCO is the recommended mechanism because it's easy to implement, tracked in the source code, and git directly supports a "signed-off" feature using "commit -s". To be most effective it is best if the project documentation explains what "signed-off" means for that project. A CLA is a legal agreement that defines the terms under which intellectual works have been licensed to an organization or project. A contributor assignment agreement (CAA) is a legal agreement that transfers rights in an intellectual work to another party; projects are not required to have CAAs, since having CAA increases the risk that potential contributors will not contribute, especially if the receiver is a for-profit organization. The Apache Software Foundation CLAs (the individual contributor license and the corporate CLA) are examples of CLAs, for projects which determine that the risks of these kinds of CLAs to the project are less than their benefits.

    Contributions are governed by the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO). CONTRIBUTING.md, Section 2, requires every commit to be signed off with a Signed-off-by line (via git commit -s) and links to https://developercertificate.org/, documenting what sign-off means for this project. This is the recommended lightweight legal mechanism by which contributors assert they are authorized to submit their contributions under the project's GPL-3.0-or-later license. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#developer-certificate-of-origin-dco



    The project MUST clearly define and document its project governance model (the way it makes decisions, including key roles). (URL required) [governance]
    There needs to be some well-established documented way to make decisions and resolve disputes. In small projects, this may be as simple as "the project owner and lead makes all final decisions". There are various governance models, including benevolent dictator and formal meritocracy; for more details, see Governance models. Both centralized (e.g., single-maintainer) and decentralized (e.g., group maintainers) approaches have been successfully used in projects. The governance information does not need to document the possibility of creating a project fork, since that is always possible for FLOSS projects.

    The project's governance model is documented in docs/GOVERNANCE.md. Libellus Potionis uses a single-maintainer (benevolent-dictator) model: the project owner and lead makes all final decisions on scope, design, contribution acceptance, and releases. Proposals and discussion happen openly in the Codeberg issue tracker and pull requests; the maintainer decides and is the sole merger (process in CONTRIBUTING.md §2), resolves disputes, and — as a FLOSS project — anyone may fork under GPL-3.0-or-later. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/docs/GOVERNANCE.md



    The project MUST adopt a code of conduct and post it in a standard location. (URL required) [code_of_conduct]
    Projects may be able to improve the civility of their community and to set expectations about acceptable conduct by adopting a code of conduct. This can help avoid problems before they occur and make the project a more welcoming place to encourage contributions. This should focus only on behavior within the community/workplace of the project. Example codes of conduct are the Linux kernel code of conduct, the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, the Debian Code of Conduct, the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, the Fedora Code of Conduct, the GNOME Code Of Conduct, the KDE Community Code of Conduct, the Python Community Code of Conduct, The Ruby Community Conduct Guideline, and The Rust Code of Conduct.

    The project has adopted the Contributor Covenant version 2.1 as its code of conduct, posted at the standard location CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in the repository root and linked from CONTRIBUTING.md. It defines expected and unacceptable behavior, enforcement responsibilities and scope, a reporting/enforcement contact (android@godisch.de), and graduated enforcement guidelines. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md



    The project MUST clearly define and publicly document the key roles in the project and their responsibilities, including any tasks those roles must perform. It MUST be clear who has which role(s), though this might not be documented in the same way. (URL required) [roles_responsibilities]
    The documentation for governance and roles and responsibilities may be in one place.

    The project's key roles and responsibilities are documented in docs/GOVERNANCE.md ("Key roles"). The project currently has a single role — Maintainer / project lead, held by Martin A. Godisch (android@godisch.de) — with explicitly listed responsibilities: triaging and answering issues, reviewing and merging contributions, handling security reports, maintaining translations and documentation, and preparing and signing releases. It is clear who holds the role, and contributors take on no formal ongoing role beyond their individual contributions. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/docs/GOVERNANCE.md#key-roles



    The project MUST be able to continue with minimal interruption if any one person dies, is incapacitated, or is otherwise unable or unwilling to continue support of the project. In particular, the project MUST be able to create and close issues, accept proposed changes, and release versions of software, within a week of confirmation of the loss of support from any one individual. This MAY be done by ensuring someone else has any necessary keys, passwords, and legal rights to continue the project. Individuals who run a FLOSS project MAY do this by providing keys in a lockbox and a will providing any needed legal rights (e.g., for DNS names). (URL required) [access_continuity]

    Not currently met. Libellus Potionis is maintained by a single person, and no continuity arrangement is in place yet that would let the project reliably continue — creating/closing issues, accepting changes, and releasing — within a week if that person became unavailable. Distribution via F-Droid is an advantage here (F-Droid builds from source and signs the APK with its own key, so releases do not depend on the maintainer's private signing key), and the project is fully FLOSS on a public Codeberg repository (so it is forkable), but no successor has been designated with the necessary repository access and legal rights. Planned remediation: designate a trusted successor with access to the required credentials/keys (e.g. via a lockbox) and legal rights, and/or add a second maintainer, then document the arrangement in docs/GOVERNANCE.md.



    The project SHOULD have a "bus factor" of 2 or more. (URL required) [bus_factor]
    A "bus factor" (aka "truck factor") is the minimum number of project members that have to suddenly disappear from a project ("hit by a bus") before the project stalls due to lack of knowledgeable or competent personnel. The truck-factor tool can estimate this for projects on GitHub. For more information, see Assessing the Bus Factor of Git Repositories by Cosentino et al.

    Not met. The project currently has a single maintainer, so its bus factor is 1. Achieving a bus factor of 2 or more requires a second, significantly involved maintainer. This is tracked as an open item in docs/ROADMAP.md ("Working toward the OpenSSF gold badge").


  • Documentation


    The project MUST have a documented roadmap that describes what the project intends to do and not do for at least the next year. (URL required) [documentation_roadmap]
    The project might not achieve the roadmap, and that's fine; the purpose of the roadmap is to help potential users and contributors understand the intended direction of the project. It need not be detailed.

    The project maintains a documented roadmap in docs/ROADMAP.md (linked from the README) covering roughly the next year. It describes the project's intended directions as well as its explicit non-goals — what the project deliberately will not do — and is clearly framed as a statement of intent rather than a commitment. The specific items are listed in the file itself. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/docs/ROADMAP.md



    The project MUST include documentation of the architecture (aka high-level design) of the software produced by the project. If the project does not produce software, select "not applicable" (N/A). (URL required) [documentation_architecture]
    A software architecture explains a program's fundamental structures, i.e., the program's major components, the relationships among them, and the key properties of these components and relationships.

    The software's high-level architecture is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md §3 ("Architecture rules"): it lists the major components (the data/, data/security/, domain/, l10n/, ui/, and util/ packages and their roles) and the relationships and layering constraints among them (the domain layer is framework-free and JVM-testable, Room types stay within the data layer, repositories expose only domain models, and ViewModels are context-free except SettingsViewModel). The README's "Technical Aspects" section additionally documents the key technologies and the manual dependency-injection approach (PotillusApp lazy singletons), Room, and Jetpack Compose. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#3-architecture-rules



    The project MUST document what the user can and cannot expect in terms of security from the software produced by the project (its "security requirements"). (URL required) [documentation_security]
    These are the security requirements that the software is intended to meet.

    SECURITY.md includes a "Security model" section documenting the software's security requirements — what users can and cannot expect. Users can expect that the app never transmits data (it holds no network permission), applies data minimization and least privilege, stores data on-device in sandboxed storage encrypted at rest (with an AES-256-GCM Keystore key for preferences), offers an optional biometric lock, and performs no tracking. It also states the limits: no defence on a compromised/rooted device, the biometric lock is an access gate rather than full-disk/forensic protection, exported files leave the app's control, and BAC estimates are informational. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/SECURITY.md#security-model



    The project MUST provide a "quick start" guide for new users to help them quickly do something with the software. (URL required) [documentation_quick_start]
    The idea is to show users how to get started and make the software do anything at all. This is critically important for potential users to get started.

    The README provides a "Quick start" section that helps a new user do something with the software quickly: install from F-Droid, log a first drink from the Today screen's plus button, and immediately see consumption and limit status, with optional steps to set limits, enter body weight for a BAC estimate, and export a PDF/CSV/JSON. The in-app User's Guide covers everything in full. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/README.md#quick-start



    The project MUST make an effort to keep the documentation consistent with the current version of the project results (including software produced by the project). Any known documentation defects making it inconsistent MUST be fixed. If the documentation is generally current, but erroneously includes some older information that is no longer true, just treat that as a defect, then track and fix as usual. [documentation_current]
    The documentation MAY include information about differences or changes between versions of the software and/or link to older versions of the documentation. The intent of this criterion is that an effort is made to keep the documentation consistent, not that the documentation must be perfect.

    The project actively keeps its documentation consistent with the current version and fixes known documentation defects. A release gate (tools/release-check.sh) enforces version-string consistency across build.gradle.kts, the top CHANGELOG.md entry, the README title, and proguard-rules.pro, flags missing file headers and undocumented public functions, and rejects non-English prose; the CONTRIBUTING.md release checklist (§7) ties documentation updates to every release, and LocaleSyncTest fails the build on inconsistent or incomplete translations. Known defects are fixed as they are found — for example, CONTRIBUTING.md was recently corrected to match the code (architecture package map, a constant value, the testing-strategy table, and the localization workflow). URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/tools/release-check.sh



    The project repository front page and/or website MUST identify and hyperlink to any achievements, including this best practices badge, within 48 hours of public recognition that the achievement has been attained. (URL required) [documentation_achievements]
    An achievement is any set of external criteria that the project has specifically worked to meet, including some badges. This information does not need to be on the project website front page. A project using GitHub can put achievements on the repository front page by adding them to the README file.

    The repository front page (the rendered README) identifies and hyperlinks to the project's OpenSSF Best Practices badge at the top, using the badge image for project 13480 linked to the project's badge entry. Because the badge image reflects the current status automatically, the achievement is shown and stays up to date. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/README.md


  • Accessibility and internationalization


    The project (both project sites and project results) SHOULD follow accessibility best practices so that persons with disabilities can still participate in the project and use the project results where it is reasonable to do so. [accessibility_best_practices]
    For web applications, see the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) and its supporting document Understanding WCAG 2.0; see also W3C accessibility information. For GUI applications, consider using the environment-specific accessibility guidelines (such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Android, iOS, Mac, and Windows). Some TUI applications (e.g. `ncurses` programs) can do certain things to make themselves more accessible (such as `alpine`'s `force-arrow-cursor` setting). Most command-line applications are fairly accessible as-is. This criterion is often N/A, e.g., for program libraries. Here are some examples of actions to take or issues to consider:
    • Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language ( WCAG 2.0 guideline 1.1)
    • Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element. ( WCAG 2.0 guideline 1.4.1)
    • The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for large text, incidental text, and logotypes ( WCAG 2.0 guideline 1.4.3)
    • Make all functionality available from a keyboard (WCAG guideline 2.1)
    • A GUI or web-based project SHOULD test with at least one screen-reader on the target platform(s) (e.g. NVDA, Jaws, or WindowEyes on Windows; VoiceOver on Mac & iOS; Orca on Linux/BSD; TalkBack on Android). TUI programs MAY work to reduce overdraw to prevent redundant reading by screen-readers.

    The application follows Android accessibility best practices, without claiming conformance to any WCAG level or using a W3C conformance logo. Every INTERACTIVE control carries a screen-reader (TalkBack) name via contentDescription — including the calendar navigation arrows, the drink-category icon and each year heat-map day cell that holds data (added in the v0.79.0 QA rounds) — while purely decorative icons are explicitly null. The app is built on Material 3 / Jetpack Compose (TalkBack semantics, sp-based dynamic text scaling), declares RTL support, and uses a blue-vs-red (not red/green) under/over-limit palette that is colour-blind distinguishable. tools/release-check.sh section 13 guards this labelling invariant against regressions. Known, measured gaps toward WCAG 2.2 Level AA are tracked honestly in docs/ROADMAP.md: standard Material controls meet the target-size minimum but the dense 10 dp year heat-map cells do not (2.5.8); a few contrast pairs fall just under the thresholds (1.4.3 / 1.4.11); and the on-screen bar/donut chart is a bare Canvas with no text alternative (1.1.1, a Level A item). As this is a SHOULD criterion about FOLLOWING accessibility best practices rather than certifying full WCAG conformance, the project meets it through broad platform adherence while tracking the remaining gaps.



    The software produced by the project SHOULD be internationalized to enable easy localization for the target audience's culture, region, or language. If internationalization (i18n) does not apply (e.g., the software doesn't generate text intended for end-users and doesn't sort human-readable text), select "not applicable" (N/A). [internationalization]
    Localization "refers to the adaptation of a product, application or document content to meet the language, cultural and other requirements of a specific target market (a locale)." Internationalization is the "design and development of a product, application or document content that enables easy localization for target audiences that vary in culture, region, or language." (See W3C's "Localization vs. Internationalization".) Software meets this criterion simply by being internationalized. No localization for another specific language is required, since once software has been internationalized it's possible for others to work on localization.

    The application is fully internationalized. All user-facing text is externalized into Android string resources (res/values*/strings.xml); no user-facing strings are hard-coded, and the release gate enforces English-only source prose. Localization is driven by a single source of truth, l10n/SupportedLocales.kt, and the app currently ships 22 locales (English and German hand-authored, the rest machine-generated). Completeness and consistency are enforced automatically by LocaleSyncTest, which fails the build on missing or inconsistent translations. The app also handles locale-dependent formatting, a configurable week start, and declares RTL support for right-to-left languages, and CONTRIBUTING.md documents how new locales and corrections are contributed. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/app/src/main/kotlin/de/godisch/potillus/l10n/SupportedLocales.kt


  • Other


    If the project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) store 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). If the project sites do not store passwords for this purpose, select "not applicable" (N/A). [sites_password_security]
    Note that the use of GitHub meets this criterion. This criterion only applies to passwords used for authentication of external users into the project sites (aka inbound authentication). If the project sites must log in to other sites (aka outbound authentication), they may need to store authorization tokens for that purpose differently (since storing a hash would be useless). This applies criterion crypto_password_storage to the project sites, similar to sites_https.

    Not applicable. The project does not operate any site of its own that stores passwords for authenticating external users. All project sites are third-party hosted: the source repository and issue tracker are on Codeberg, downloads are distributed via F-Droid, and the badge entry is on bestpractices.dev. Authentication for these is handled by those platforms; the project itself stores no user passwords, so this criterion does not apply.


 Change Control 1/1

  • Previous versions


    The project MUST maintain the most often used older versions of the product or provide an upgrade path to newer versions. If the upgrade path is difficult, the project MUST document how to perform the upgrade (e.g., the interfaces that have changed and detailed suggested steps to help upgrade). [maintenance_or_update]

    The project provides a clear, low-friction upgrade path to newer versions. The app is distributed via F-Droid (with Google Play planned), where users receive and install updates through the store's normal update mechanism, with no manual steps. User data is carried forward automatically across versions by versioned Room database migrations, which are covered by an instrumented MigrationTest, so upgrading never loses data. Because the upgrade path is straightforward, no separate upgrade documentation is required; as a mobile app, only the newest version is distributed, so maintaining older versions in parallel is unnecessary.


 Reporting 3/3

  • Bug-reporting process


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

    The project uses the Codeberg issue tracker to track individual issues. The tracker is enabled and public, and users are directed to it: the README ("Feedback & Contributing") and CONTRIBUTING.md §2 point bug reports and enhancement suggestions there, while SECURITY.md routes security-sensitive reports to a private channel instead. Issue tracker: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/issues


  • Vulnerability report process


    The project MUST give credit to the reporter(s) of all vulnerability reports resolved in the last 12 months, except for the reporter(s) who request anonymity. If there have been no vulnerabilities resolved in the last 12 months, select "not applicable" (N/A). (URL required) [vulnerability_report_credit]

    Not applicable. No externally reported security vulnerabilities have been resolved in the last 12 months, so there are no reporters to credit. Should this change, the project's practice is to credit reporters of resolved vulnerabilities unless they request anonymity; the reporting channel is documented in SECURITY.md.



    The project MUST have a documented process for responding to vulnerability reports. (URL required) [vulnerability_response_process]
    This is strongly related to vulnerability_report_process, which requires that there be a documented way to report vulnerabilities. It also related to vulnerability_report_response, which requires response to vulnerability reports within a certain time frame.

    The project has a documented vulnerability-response process in SECURITY.md. It specifies a private, PGP-encrypted reporting channel to android@godisch.de (with the maintainer's published PGP fingerprint obtained from the official Debian keyserver) kept separate from the public issue tracker, states what a report should include, commits to acknowledging reports within 14 days followed by assessment and response, and defines the scope of what qualifies as a security issue. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/SECURITY.md


 Quality 18/19

  • Coding standards


    The project MUST identify the specific coding style guides for the primary languages it uses, and require that contributions generally comply with it. (URL required) [coding_standards]
    In most cases this is done by referring to some existing style guide(s), possibly listing differences. These style guides can include ways to improve readability and ways to reduce the likelihood of defects (including vulnerabilities). Many programming languages have one or more widely-used style guides. Examples of style guides include Google's style guides and SEI CERT Coding Standards.

    The project identifies a specific coding style guide for its primary language and requires general compliance. CONTRIBUTING.md §4 ("Coding conventions") directs contributors to follow the official Kotlin coding conventions (kotlinlang.org/docs/coding-conventions.html) and adds project-specific rules (mandatory KDoc on public API, constant placement, default-value consistency, enum persistence by name). Compliance is required through the review process (§2 makes the documented conventions a merge condition) and is partly enforced automatically via Kotlin's allWarningsAsErrors and Android Lint's warningsAsErrors gates. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#4-coding-conventions



    The project MUST automatically enforce its selected coding style(s) if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can do so in the selected language(s). [coding_standards_enforced]
    This MAY be implemented using static analysis tool(s) and/or by forcing the code through code reformatters. In many cases the tool configuration is included in the project's repository (since different projects may choose different configurations). Projects MAY allow style exceptions (and typically will); where exceptions occur, they MUST be rare and documented in the code at their locations, so that these exceptions can be reviewed and so that tools can automatically handle them in the future. Examples of such tools include ESLint (JavaScript), Rubocop (Ruby), and devtools check (R).

    The project automatically enforces its selected Kotlin coding style using ktlint (a FLOSS tool), integrated via the org.jlleitschuh.gradle.ktlint Gradle plugin. Style settings are defined in the repository-root .editorconfig (official Kotlin conventions). The ktlintCheck task runs as part of the standard check lifecycle and fails on violations, and ktlintFormat auto-formats sources; CONTRIBUTING.md §4 documents this for contributors. Enforcement is build-time only and not on the release-assembly path, so reproducible builds are preserved.


  • Working build system


    Build systems for native binaries MUST honor the relevant compiler and linker (environment) variables passed in to them (e.g., CC, CFLAGS, CXX, CXXFLAGS, and LDFLAGS) and pass them to compiler and linker invocations. A build system MAY extend them with additional flags; it MUST NOT simply replace provided values with its own. If no native binaries are being generated, select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_standard_variables]
    It should be easy to enable special build features like Address Sanitizer (ASAN), or to comply with distribution hardening best practices (e.g., by easily turning on compiler flags to do so).

    Not applicable. The project does not generate any native binaries: there is no externalNativeBuild, CMake, or NDK configuration and no C/C++ sources — the app is pure Kotlin/JVM. The only .so references are in a jniLibs packaging block that excludes two precompiled shared libraries shipped by AndroidX dependencies; the project compiles no native code itself, so there are no compiler/linker invocations to honor CC/CFLAGS/LDFLAGS.



    The build and installation system SHOULD preserve debugging information if they are requested in the relevant flags (e.g., "install -s" is not used). If there is no build or installation system (e.g., typical JavaScript libraries), select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_preserve_debug]
    E.G., setting CFLAGS (C) or CXXFLAGS (C++) should create the relevant debugging information if those languages are used, and they should not be stripped during installation. Debugging information is needed for support and analysis, and also useful for measuring the presence of hardening features in the compiled binaries.

    Not applicable. The project generates no native binaries (no NDK/CMake/externalNativeBuild and no C/C++ sources), so there is no native debugging information to preserve or strip. Kotlin/JVM debugging metadata is handled by the standard toolchain rather than by native compiler flags.



    The build system for the software produced by the project MUST NOT recursively build subdirectories if there are cross-dependencies in the subdirectories. If there is no build or installation system (e.g., typical JavaScript libraries), select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_non_recursive]
    The project build system's internal dependency information needs to be accurate, otherwise, changes to the project may not build correctly. Incorrect builds can lead to defects (including vulnerabilities). A common mistake in large build systems is to use a "recursive build" or "recursive make", that is, a hierarchy of subdirectories containing source files, where each subdirectory is independently built. Unless each subdirectory is fully independent, this is a mistake, because the dependency information is incorrect.

    The project builds with Gradle, not make. Gradle constructs a single directed acyclic task graph for the whole project during configuration and resolves dependencies across the entire build, which is the non-recursive build model this criterion calls for; the pitfalls of recursive make do not apply. The build comprises a single application module (:app) declared in settings.gradle.kts, so there is no recursive subdirectory building. (Because the project does not use make, N/A would also be a defensible selection.)



    The project MUST be able to repeat the process of generating information from source files and get exactly the same bit-for-bit result. If no building occurs (e.g., scripting languages where the source code is used directly instead of being compiled), select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_repeatable]
    GCC and clang users may find the -frandom-seed option useful; in some cases, this can be resolved by forcing some sort order. More suggestions can be found at the reproducible build site.

    The project has a reproducible build and this is verified externally: the app is built from source and distributed via F-Droid, whose reproducible-builds process rebuilds the app and compares it bit-for-bit against the published artifact. The build is deterministic by design — the Gradle version catalog (libs.versions.toml) pins all dependency and plugin versions, and AGP/Kotlin/KSP are pinned. Determinism is actively protected: the foojay JDK auto-provisioning resolver was deliberately removed (and must not be re-added) because it would make builds network-dependent and non-reproducible, and build-time-only steps (SBOM generation, jniLibs packaging exclusions, and the newly added ktlint check) are kept off the release-assembly path so they do not affect the APK output.


  • Installation system


    The project MUST provide a way to easily install and uninstall the software produced by the project using a commonly-used convention. [installation_common]
    Examples include using a package manager (at the system or language level), "make install/uninstall" (supporting DESTDIR), a container in a standard format, or a virtual machine image in a standard format. The installation and uninstallation process (e.g., its packaging) MAY be implemented by a third party as long as it is FLOSS.

    The software is installed and uninstalled using the platform's standard convention for Android apps. Installation is via F-Droid (with Google Play planned), the platform's package-manager/app-store mechanism, or by side-loading the signed APK; uninstallation uses Android's built-in uninstall flow (long-press the app or Settings → Apps). The app installs no system or root components and stores all data in its sandbox, so a normal uninstall removes it completely. The README "Quick start" documents the installation path.



    The installation system for end-users MUST honor standard conventions for selecting the location where built artifacts are written to at installation time. For example, if it installs files on a POSIX system it MUST honor the DESTDIR environment variable. If there is no installation system or no standard convention, select "not applicable" (N/A). [installation_standard_variables]

    Not applicable. DESTDIR/PREFIX-style variables apply to make install-type installations into filesystem prefixes (typical of C/Autotools projects). An Android application has no such installation system: where the app is placed is decided by the operating system's package installer (F-Droid/Play/the Android package manager), not by a project-provided install step, so there is no location-selection stage that could honor DESTDIR or PREFIX.



    The project MUST provide a way for potential developers to quickly install all the project results and support environment necessary to make changes, including the tests and test environment. This MUST be performed with a commonly-used convention. [installation_development_quick]
    This MAY be implemented using a generated container and/or installation script(s). External dependencies would typically be installed by invoking system and/or language package manager(s), per external_dependencies.

    It is easy to get started developing the software. The project is a standard Android Gradle project: cloning the repository and running the bundled Gradle wrapper (./gradlew) builds it with no manual Gradle installation, and all dependency and plugin versions are pinned in the version catalog with repositories preconfigured in settings.gradle.kts, so a fresh checkout builds without additional setup. Developers can import it into Android Studio or run ./gradlew assembleDebug and installDebug to see changes on an emulator or device. CONTRIBUTING.md (architecture, build/test commands, release checklist) and the README's "Technical Aspects" document the path from clone to a running build.


  • Externally-maintained components


    The project MUST list external dependencies in a computer-processable way. (URL required) [external_dependencies]
    Typically this is done using the conventions of package manager and/or build system. Note that this helps implement installation_development_quick.

    External dependencies are declared in a computer-processable, versioned form and are obtained automatically by a standard build. The Gradle version catalog (android/gradle/libs.versions.toml) pins every library and plugin version in its [versions], [libraries], and [plugins] tables, referenced via alias(libs.…) in the build scripts; settings.gradle.kts configures the repositories (google, mavenCentral, gradlePluginPortal), so ./gradlew resolves and downloads all declared dependencies with no manual steps. The build additionally generates a CycloneDX 1.6 JSON SBOM of the release dependencies as a standardized machine-readable inventory. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/gradle/libs.versions.toml



    Projects MUST monitor or periodically check their external dependencies (including convenience copies) to detect known vulnerabilities, and fix exploitable vulnerabilities or verify them as unexploitable. [dependency_monitoring]
    This can be done using an origin analyzer / dependency checking tool / software composition analysis tool such as OWASP's Dependency-Check, Sonatype's Nexus Auditor, Synopsys' Black Duck Software Composition Analysis, and Bundler-audit (for Ruby). Some package managers include mechanisms to do this. It is acceptable if the components' vulnerability cannot be exploited, but this analysis is difficult and it is sometimes easier to simply update or fix the part.

    The project periodically checks its external dependencies for known vulnerabilities. As documented in SECURITY.md ("Dependency monitoring") and enforced by the CONTRIBUTING.md §7 release checklist, dependencies are scanned before each release with osv-scanner (a FLOSS scanner querying the OSV database) against the CycloneDX SBOM the build generates. Reported issues are triaged: exploitable vulnerabilities are fixed by upgrading or mitigating the affected dependency; non-exploitable ones are recorded as such. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/SECURITY.md#dependency-monitoring



    The project MUST either:
    1. make it easy to identify and update reused externally-maintained components; or
    2. use the standard components provided by the system or programming language.
    Then, if a vulnerability is found in a reused component, it will be easy to update that component. [updateable_reused_components]
    A typical way to meet this criterion is to use system and programming language package management systems. Many FLOSS programs are distributed with "convenience libraries" that are local copies of standard libraries (possibly forked). By itself, that's fine. However, if the program *must* use these local (forked) copies, then updating the "standard" libraries as a security update will leave these additional copies still vulnerable. This is especially an issue for cloud-based systems; if the cloud provider updates their "standard" libraries but the program won't use them, then the updates don't actually help. See, e.g., "Chromium: Why it isn't in Fedora yet as a proper package" by Tom Callaway.

    The project uses externally-maintained components throughout, declared and version-pinned in the Gradle version catalog, with no vendored/convenience copies of third-party source that could silently go stale. The stack is kept current (modern AndroidX/Jetpack/Compose libraries, AGP 9 with built-in Kotlin, KSP), keeping it up to date is an explicit roadmap goal ("stay current and maintained"), and the documented pre-release osv-scanner check (see SECURITY.md, "Dependency monitoring") prevents the project from locking itself into outdated versions with known vulnerabilities, since findings are resolved by upgrading. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/gradle/libs.versions.toml



    The project SHOULD avoid using deprecated or obsolete functions and APIs where FLOSS alternatives are available in the set of technology it uses (its "technology stack") and to a supermajority of the users the project supports (so that users have ready access to the alternative). [interfaces_current]

    The project avoids deprecated or obsolete APIs and enforces this automatically: Kotlin's allWarningsAsErrors and Android Lint's warningsAsErrors promote deprecation warnings to build-breaking errors, so using a deprecated API fails the build. The technology stack is modern and actively maintained (current Jetpack Compose/AndroidX APIs, KSP instead of the older kapt, minSdk 30 avoiding legacy-compatibility workarounds), and the roadmap goal of staying current keeps the interfaces in use aligned with upstream releases. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/app/build.gradle.kts


  • Automated test suite


    An automated test suite MUST be applied on each check-in to a shared repository for at least one branch. This test suite MUST produce a report on test success or failure. [automated_integration_testing]
    This requirement can be viewed as a subset of test_continuous_integration, but focused on just testing, without requiring continuous integration.

    Not currently met. The project does not yet run continuous integration, so its automated test suite is not applied automatically on each check-in with a pass/fail report. The test suite itself exists and is invocable (./gradlew test; see test_invocation). Planned remediation: add a Woodpecker CI pipeline (.woodpecker.yml) on Codeberg that runs the JVM unit tests (and lint/ktlint checks) on each push to at least one branch and reports success or failure.



    The project MUST add regression tests to an automated test suite for at least 50% of the bugs fixed within the last six months. [regression_tests_added50]

    Met. For well over 50% of the bugs fixed in the recent release history, the project added a regression test or an automated check that prevents recurrence. Examples of regression tests: LocaleFormattingInstrumentedTest (added with the fix for incorrect system-language number/date formatting in exports on API 30–32), NumberFormatTest (pinning the decimal separator after a locale-dependent formatting bug), and a white-box assertion in BackupRepositoryInstrumentedTest added with a backup fix. In addition, defect fixes were routinely paired with new invariants in the automated release-check gate (tools/release-check.sh) — e.g. version-string and locale-consistency checks and current-version locale-coverage checks — and with re-enabled lint checks (such as PluralsCandidate) that catch the class of bug going forward. Together these mean the majority of recent fixes are covered by automated regression protection.



    The project MUST have FLOSS automated test suite(s) that provide at least 80% statement coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this criterion in the selected language. [test_statement_coverage80]
    Many FLOSS tools are available to measure test coverage, including gcov/lcov, Blanket.js, Istanbul, JCov, and covr (R). Note that meeting this criterion is not a guarantee that the test suite is thorough, instead, failing to meet this criterion is a strong indicator of a poor test suite.

    The JVM unit-test suite reaches ~97% statement (line) coverage, measured with Kover over the unit-testable code. Android-runtime-bound code (Compose UI, Room database/DAOs, DataStore preferences, Keystore, PDF/WebView rendering, and MediaStore import/export) is excluded from this figure and verified instead by the instrumented suite (src/androidTest). A build-breaking 90% line floor is enforced by the koverVerify Gradle task in the release gate (make cover-check). Methodology: CONTRIBUTING.md §5; scope/enforcement: app/build.gradle.kts.


  • New functionality testing


    The project MUST have a formal written policy that as major new functionality is added, tests for the new functionality MUST be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy_mandated]

    The project has a formal written policy mandating tests for new functionality. CONTRIBUTING.md §5 ("Test policy (mandatory)") states that as major new functionality is added, automated tests covering it MUST be added to the project's automated test suite as part of the same change, and that a change introducing significant new behavior without accompanying tests will not be merged. This is reinforced by the domain-layer coverage-floor rules in the same section. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#5-testing-strategy



    The project MUST include, in its documented instructions for change proposals, the policy that tests are to be added for major new functionality. [tests_documented_added]
    However, even an informal rule is acceptable as long as the tests are being added in practice.

    The project's documented instructions for change proposals include the test-addition policy. CONTRIBUTING.md §2 ("Submitting changes"), step 3, states that per the mandatory test policy in §5, major new functionality MUST include automated tests covering it in the same change, and that ./gradlew test must pass and the release gate must stay green. The full policy is defined in §5. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#2-submitting-changes


  • Warning flags


    Projects MUST 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.

    The project is maximally strict with warnings. The Kotlin compiler runs with allWarningsAsErrors = true, so every compiler warning fails the build, and Android Lint runs with warningsAsErrors = true and abortOnError = true, promoting every lint warning to a build-breaking error. Rather than suppressing warnings, the project removes their causes and re-enables checks once underlying tooling bugs are fixed (e.g. the PluralsCandidate and WrongStartDestinationType lint checks were restored after workarounds were no longer needed). ktlint was additionally added as a style checker. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/app/build.gradle.kts


 Security 13/13

  • Secure development knowledge


    The project MUST implement secure design principles (from "know_secure_design"), where applicable. If the project is not producing software, select "not applicable" (N/A). [implement_secure_design]
    For example, the project results should have fail-safe defaults (access decisions should deny by default, and projects' installation should be secure by default). They should also have complete mediation (every access that might be limited must be checked for authority and be non-bypassable). Note that in some cases principles will conflict, in which case a choice must be made (e.g., many mechanisms can make things more complex, contravening "economy of mechanism" / keep it simple).

    The project implements secure design principles. Least privilege / minimal attack surface: the app holds no network permission and requests no camera, microphone, location, contacts, or runtime-storage permissions. Secure defaults: it is offline-only with no tracking, analytics, or ads by design; data stays in the app sandbox; and the preferences store is sealed with an AES-256-GCM key in the hardware-backed Android Keystore. Economy of mechanism: a small, focused architecture with a framework-free domain layer and no unnecessary services. Fail-safe input handling: importers validate input and the CSV exporter neutralizes formula injection (OWASP "CSV Injection"), with migration tests protecting data integrity. Defense in depth: an optional biometric lock supplements the platform sandbox. These are documented in SECURITY.md ("Security model") and PRIVACY.md. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/SECURITY.md#security-model


  • Use basic good cryptographic practices

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

    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST 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.

    The software's default security mechanisms use only strong, modern cryptography and none of the known-weak algorithms or modes. The encrypted preferences store uses AES-256 in GCM (authenticated encryption) — not ECB, CBC, DES/3DES, or RC4 — with the key held in the hardware-backed Android Keystore, a 96-bit random IV per encryption drawn from a cryptographically secure RNG, and a 128-bit authentication tag. No weak hash functions (e.g. MD5 or SHA-1) are used in the security mechanisms. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/app/src/main/kotlin/de/godisch/potillus/data/security/KeystoreSecretStore.kt



    The project SHOULD support multiple cryptographic algorithms, so users can quickly switch if one is broken. Common symmetric key algorithms include AES, Twofish, and Serpent. Common cryptographic hash algorithm alternatives include SHA-2 (including SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384 AND SHA-512) and SHA-3. [crypto_algorithm_agility]

    Not currently met. The at-rest encryption uses a single hardwired algorithm (AES-256-GCM), and the persisted blob format (IV || ciphertext+tag) carries no version/algorithm marker, so it does not support switching cryptographic algorithms. The algorithm is, however, encapsulated in a single module (KeystoreSecretStore), so a change would be localized. Planned remediation (SHOULD, non-blocking): introduce a self-describing versioned blob format (version byte authenticated as GCM AAD, with a read-legacy/write-versioned migration) so a future algorithm can be selected per record.



    The project MUST support storing authentication credentials (such as passwords and dynamic tokens) and private cryptographic keys in files that are separate from other information (such as configuration files, databases, and logs), and permit users to update and replace them without code recompilation. If the project never processes authentication credentials and private cryptographic keys, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_credential_agility]

    Not applicable. The application processes no authentication credentials (no passwords, tokens, logins, or network authentication) and stores no key files. Its only cryptographic key is an AES-256-GCM key generated inside the hardware-backed Android Keystore; the raw key material never leaves the secure hardware and is never written to a file, so there are no user-managed credential or key files to store separately or replace without recompilation. (For context, the Keystore key is already isolated from configuration, database, and logs and could be rotated by deleting its alias, but this is not user-facing credential management.)



    The software produced by the project SHOULD support secure protocols for all of its network communications, such as SSHv2 or later, TLS1.2 or later (HTTPS), IPsec, SFTP, and SNMPv3. Insecure protocols such as FTP, HTTP, telnet, SSLv3 or earlier, and SSHv1 SHOULD be disabled by default, and only enabled if the user specifically configures it. If the software produced by the project does not support network communications, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_used_network]

    Not applicable. The application performs no network communication: it does not declare the INTERNET permission, works entirely offline, and transmits no data. There are therefore no network protocols whose security could be assessed.



    The software produced by the project SHOULD, if it supports or uses TLS, support at least TLS version 1.2. Note that the predecessor of TLS was called SSL. If the software does not use TLS, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_tls12]

    Not applicable. The application does not use TLS because it performs no network communication at all (no INTERNET permission, offline-only). There is no TLS configuration or version to assess.



    The software produced by the project MUST, if it supports TLS, perform TLS certificate verification by default when using TLS, including on subresources. If the software does not use TLS, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_certificate_verification]

    Not applicable. The application does not use TLS and performs no network communication (no INTERNET permission, offline-only), so there are no TLS connections and no certificate verification to assess.



    The software produced by the project MUST, if it supports TLS, perform certificate verification before sending HTTP headers with private information (such as secure cookies). If the software does not use TLS, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_verification_private]

    Not applicable. The application does not use TLS and performs no network communication (no INTERNET permission, offline-only); it never sends HTTP headers or any private information over a network, so there is nothing to verify before transmission.


  • Secure release


    The project MUST cryptographically sign releases of the project results intended for widespread use, and there MUST be a documented process explaining to users how they can obtain the public signing keys and verify the signature(s). The private key for these signature(s) MUST NOT be on site(s) used to directly distribute the software to the public. If releases are not intended for widespread use, select "not applicable" (N/A). [signed_releases]
    The project results include both source code and any generated deliverables where applicable (e.g., executables, packages, and containers). Generated deliverables MAY be signed separately from source code. These MAY be implemented as signed git tags (using cryptographic digital signatures). Projects MAY provide generated results separately from tools like git, but in those cases, the separate results MUST be separately signed.

    Releases are cryptographically signed with the maintainer's own Android app-signing key via reproducible builds; the private key is held only by the maintainer and is never stored on Codeberg, F-Droid, or any other distribution site. SECURITY.md ("Verifying releases") documents how users obtain the public key and verify a release: the F-Droid client verifies the signature automatically and the project's F-Droid metadata pins the allowed signing key; users can also compare the APK signing certificate SHA-256 fingerprint (7506f17184b31a2d67621305d190a73e497806b39f7d64463ff5dbc0afd8317b) via apksigner verify --print-certs, or reproduce the build and compare. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/SECURITY.md#verifying-releases



    It is SUGGESTED that in the version control system, each important version tag (a tag that is part of a major release, minor release, or fixes publicly noted vulnerabilities) be cryptographically signed and verifiable as described in signed_releases. [version_tags_signed]

    Release tags are cryptographically signed and verifiable. Per the CONTRIBUTING.md §7 release checklist, each release tag is created as a GPG-signed annotated tag (git tag -s) using the maintainer's key (fingerprint 1842 323B 4FCF 9B90 995F A17F A350 B991 F05A 4857, available from keyring.debian.org — the same key used for security reports); the checklist also documents enabling git config tag.gpgSign true so annotated tags are signed automatically. SECURITY.md ("Verifying releases") documents how to import the key and verify a tag with git tag -v. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/SECURITY.md#verifying-releases


  • Other security issues


    The project results MUST check all inputs from potentially untrusted sources to ensure they are valid (an *allowlist*), and reject invalid inputs, if there are any restrictions on the data at all. [input_validation]
    Note that comparing input against a list of "bad formats" (aka a *denylist*) is normally not enough, because attackers can often work around a denylist. In particular, numbers are converted into internal formats and then checked if they are between their minimum and maximum (inclusive), and text strings are checked to ensure that they are valid text patterns (e.g., valid UTF-8, length, syntax, etc.). Some data may need to be "anything at all" (e.g., a file uploader), but these would typically be rare.

    The application validates inputs from its potentially untrusted sources using an allowlist approach. JSON backup/import is validated on restore (structure and values) and invalid or foreign data is rejected, covered by BackupRepositoryInstrumentedTest. Numeric user inputs (drink amounts, body weight, limits) are checked for valid ranges/format, with the amount dialog entering a controlled error state rather than accepting bad values, and locale-dependent number parsing is handled deliberately (regression-tested by NumberFormatTest). Room migrations validate the database schema on upgrade (MigrationTest). As output-side hardening, the CSV exporter neutralizes formula injection (OWASP "CSV Injection"). Since the app uses no network, its untrusted inputs are essentially user entries and imported files, both of which are validated.



    Hardening mechanisms SHOULD be used in the software produced by the project so that software defects are less likely to result in security vulnerabilities. [hardening]
    Hardening mechanisms may include HTTP headers like Content Security Policy (CSP), compiler flags to mitigate attacks (such as -fstack-protector), or compiler flags to eliminate undefined behavior. For our purposes least privilege is not considered a hardening mechanism (least privilege is important, but separate).

    Met. Release builds apply R8 code shrinking and obfuscation (isMinifyEnabled = true) with resource shrinking and the optimizing ProGuard configuration. The manifest sets android:allowBackup="false" to prevent backup-based data exfiltration, and the app applies WindowManager FLAG_SECURE by default from cold start to block screenshots, screen recording, and Recents-thumbnail exposure. The permission set is minimal (no network or telephony; only USE_BIOMETRIC) and only the launcher activity is exported. These complement the hardware-backed Keystore at-rest encryption and the warnings-as-errors/lint gate. URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/app/build.gradle.kts



    The project MUST provide an assurance case that justifies why its security requirements are met. The assurance case MUST include: a description of the threat model, clear identification of trust boundaries, an argument that secure design principles have been applied, and an argument that common implementation security weaknesses have been countered. (URL required) [assurance_case]
    An assurance case is "a documented body of evidence that provides a convincing and valid argument that a specified set of critical claims regarding a system’s properties are adequately justified for a given application in a given environment" ("Software Assurance Using Structured Assurance Case Models", Thomas Rhodes et al, NIST Interagency Report 7608). Trust boundaries are boundaries where data or execution changes its level of trust, e.g., a server's boundaries in a typical web application. It's common to list secure design principles (such as Saltzer and Schroeer) and common implementation security weaknesses (such as the OWASP top 10 or CWE/SANS top 25), and show how each are countered. The BadgeApp assurance case may be a useful example. This is related to documentation_security, documentation_architecture, and implement_secure_design.

    The project provides a security assurance case in docs/ASSURANCE_CASE.md (linked from SECURITY.md). It states the security requirements, describes the threat model (assets, in-scope adversaries/attacks, and explicit out-of-scope residual risks), identifies the trust boundaries (app sandbox, hardware-backed Keystore, FLAG_SECURE screen boundary, device/biometric authentication, the export boundary, and the absence of a network boundary), argues that secure design principles were applied (least privilege, secure defaults, economy of mechanism, defense in depth, fail-safe), and maps common implementation weakness classes to their countermeasures (injection, insecure storage, cryptography, input validation, network exposure, memory safety, tampering, and upgrade data integrity). URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/docs/ASSURANCE_CASE.md


 Analysis 2/2

  • Static code analysis


    The project MUST use at least one static analysis tool with rules or approaches to look for common vulnerabilities in the analyzed language or environment, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. [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.

    The static analysis tool used for static_analysis — Android Lint — includes a dedicated set of security detectors that look for common Android-environment vulnerabilities (e.g. exported components and permission issues, cleartext traffic, hardcoded credentials, weak cryptography, unsafe WebView/TrustManager patterns, and SQL-injection/path-traversal hints). The build runs Lint with abortOnError = true and warningsAsErrors = true, so such findings are enforced as build-breaking errors rather than merely reported. This is complemented by osv-scanner dependency scanning (SECURITY.md, "Dependency monitoring"). URL: https://codeberg.org/godisch/potillus/src/branch/main/android/app/build.gradle.kts


  • Dynamic code analysis


    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) MUST 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.

    Not applicable. The software is written entirely in Kotlin running on the memory-safe JVM/ART runtime, with automatic memory management and no manual allocation, pointer arithmetic, or buffer handling. The project produces no memory-unsafe (C/C++/NDK) code, so there is no unsafe memory use for a dynamic analysis tool to detect.



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 Martin A. Godisch and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Martin A. Godisch.
Entry created on 2026-07-04 04:21:04 UTC, last updated on 2026-07-07 03:30:36 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-07-04 08:45:54 UTC.