carbon-footprint-program

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 13873 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/13873/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13873)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13873"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13873/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.

    Huella Latam is a digital public good for Latin America that lets organizations and governments measure, manage and reduce their carbon footprints. Organizations build greenhouse-gas inventories from activity data using country-configurable emission factors and methodologies, submit them for verification, and track reduction plans; national administrators manage catalogs, methodologies, users and sector-level reporting. It is a TypeScript monorepo — a Fastify + Prisma + PostgreSQL API, a React + Vite web app, shared libraries, and Azure Bicep infrastructure — released under AGPL-3.0 and owned by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The platform is country-agnostic by design: country-specific values live in configuration and seed data so each adopting country can run its own deployment.

    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.
  • Basic project website content


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

    The README opens with a one-line description — "Huella Latam: a platform (digital public good for Latin America) for measuring, managing, and reducing carbon footprints" — followed by an architecture summary, an SDG-relevance section, and a documentation index. See https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program#readme and https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/overview/project-overview.md



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

    The README "Quick start" section explains how to obtain, build and run the software; CONTRIBUTING.md explains how to give feedback and contribute; .github/SUPPORT.md routes questions, bug reports, feature requests, security reports and privacy concerns to the right channel. https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/.github/SUPPORT.md



    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/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md. It covers the Code of Conduct, licensing of contributions (AGPL-3.0), how to report bugs and request features, development setup, and the pull-request process. A detailed technical workflow (branch naming, commit conventions, local database, testing) is at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/development/contributing.md.



    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]

    CONTRIBUTING.md documents the acceptance criteria explicitly: https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-acceptance-criteria — country-agnosticism, backward compatibility for existing country deployments, integration tests for new features, documentation updates, and an explicit maintainer security review for changes to auth, authorization, file upload or DB queries. It also requires branch prefixes (feat/fix/refactor/docs/chore/infra), Conventional Commits, small modular commits, and that CI (lint, type-check, format, test, build) pass. A pull-request template is provided at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md.


  • FLOSS license


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

    The project is released under the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 only (SPDX: AGPL-3.0-only), declared in the root LICENSE file and in the "license" field of every package.json. AGPL-3.0 is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and by the Digital Public Goods Alliance.



    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 AGPL-3.0 license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).



    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/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/LICENSE — the full AGPL-3.0 text in the standard root LICENSE file. GitHub detects the license as "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0".


  • Documentation


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

    Documentation lives under docs/ with an index at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/README.md. It covers architecture (system-architecture.md, tech-stack.md, codebase-map.md, emission-calculation.md), the data model (developer-guide.md, ER diagram), development (local-setup.md, api-conventions.md, testing.md, environment-variables.md, contributing.md), operations (admin-guide.md, production-deployment.md, observability.md), infrastructure/deployment, security, and release/versioning. A separate end-user manual is maintained under user_manual/.



    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).

    The HTTP API is self-documenting via @fastify/swagger + @fastify/swagger-ui, which publish an OpenAPI specification and interactive docs at /api/docs (locally http://localhost:8080/api/docs). Route schemas are Zod-derived, so the published OpenAPI document is generated from the same schemas the API validates against. Conventions for the external interface are documented at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/development/api-conventions.md.


  • Other


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

    All project sites are HTTPS-only. The repository and its documentation are served by GitHub over HTTPS (https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program), and the demo site https://www.huellaslatam.org responds over HTTPS with a valid certificate (verified: HTTP 200, certificate chain validates). Note for accuracy: huellaslatam.org is a demonstration environment, not a production-grade deployment — it exists to show the platform, and its configuration should not be read as a production reference. There is no single canonical production instance: each adopting country provisions and operates its own. What the project guarantees across every topology is that TLS is enforced by the platform layer with minTlsVersion pinned to 1.2 in the Bicep templates (infra/modules/appService.bicep, storage.bicep, frontDoor.bicep), and that plain HTTP is rejected or redirected before a request reaches application code. See docs/security/hardening.md, "Deployment topology" and "Transport Security".



    The project MUST have one or more mechanisms for discussion (including proposed changes and issues) that are searchable, allow messages and topics to be addressed by URL, enable new people to participate in some of the discussions, and do not require client-side installation of proprietary software. [discussion]
    Examples of acceptable mechanisms include archived mailing list(s), GitHub issue and pull request discussions, Bugzilla, Mantis, and Trac. Asynchronous discussion mechanisms (like IRC) are acceptable if they meet these criteria; make sure there is a URL-addressable archiving mechanism. Proprietary JavaScript, while discouraged, is permitted.

    GitHub supports discussions on issues and pull requests. The repository is public with GitHub Issues enabled (and issue templates), GitHub Discussions enabled, and pull-request review threads — all URL-addressable, searchable and archived.



    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 maintainer-facing material is in English: README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, GOVERNANCE.md, SECURITY.md, SUPPORT.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, PRIVACY.md, the whole docs/ tree, issue and pull-request templates, and code comments. The end-user product UI is Spanish by design, since the platform targets Latin American government and organizational users.



    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.

    The project is actively maintained. 519 commits on main, the most recent release 1.6.0 published 2026-07-27, and eleven releases (1.1.1 through 1.6.0) since 2026-05. Commits and merged pull requests land continuously (PR #550 merged the day of this assessment). Maintainer responsibilities and merge/release authority are defined in https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md.


 Change Control 9/9

  • Public version-controlled source repository


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

    Repository on GitHub, which provides public git repositories with URLs: https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program (visibility: public).



    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 records the author, committer and timestamp of every change, together with the full parent history.



    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).

    Development happens in the open between releases: every change lands as a pull request merged to main, and those interim commits are public immediately rather than only at release time. 519 commits, 505 pull requests (425 of them merged) and 49 issues are publicly visible, and each release is cut from already-public main history rather than from a private branch.



    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 a distributed version control system.


  • Unique version numbering


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

    Every release has a unique identifier: an annotated git tag and a matching GitHub Release (1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5.0, 1.6.0) — see https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/releases. The canonical version lives in the root package.json, is baked into the Docker image tag, and is exposed at runtime through the APP_VERSION value returned by the API health endpoint.



    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).

    The project uses Semantic Versioning (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH) and documents the increment rules at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/release/versioning.md. The published tags follow SemVer (e.g. 1.4.1 → 1.4.2 for fixes, 1.5.0 → 1.6.0 for backward-compatible features).



    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]

    Each release is identified by a git tag with the exact version number, and the tag is what the GitHub Release points at: https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/tags.


  • Release notes


    The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". (URL required) [release_notes]
    The release notes MAY be implemented in a variety of ways. Many projects provide them in a file named "NEWS", "CHANGELOG", or "ChangeLog", optionally with extensions such as ".txt", ".md", or ".html". Historically the term "change log" meant a log of every change, but to meet these criteria what is needed is a human-readable summary. The release notes MAY instead be provided by version control system mechanisms such as the GitHub Releases workflow.

    Every release publishes human-readable release notes as a GitHub Release: https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/releases. Each entry has a "What's Changed" summary grouped by area (e.g. "User Modules", infrastructure, dependencies) listing each merged change with its author and pull-request link — for example https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/releases/tag/1.6.0. Notes are provided for all eleven releases, 1.1.1 through 1.6.0.



    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.

    No publicly known, CVE-assigned vulnerability in this project's own code has been fixed in any release to date, so there is nothing of that kind to enumerate. Dependency vulnerabilities are handled by Dependabot security updates, and the resulting pull requests appear by name in the "What's Changed" list of the release that includes them (see https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/releases). Should a vulnerability in the project's own code ever be fixed, SECURITY.md commits the maintainers to coordinated disclosure and the release notes will call it out.


 Reporting 8/8

  • Bug-reporting process


    The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). (URL required) [report_process]

    The bug-reporting process is documented in three places: CONTRIBUTING.md "Reporting bugs & requesting features" https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md, .github/SUPPORT.md, which routes each kind of report to the right channel https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/.github/SUPPORT.md, and structured issue forms at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/issues/new/choose (bug report, feature request, refactor, DPG compliance). Security vulnerabilities are explicitly excluded from public issues and routed to the private process in https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/SECURITY.md.



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

    GitHub Issues is used as the issue tracker: https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/issues. It is backed by structured issue forms in .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ (bug_report.yml, feature_request.yml, refactor.yml, dpg_compliance.yml) and a namespaced label taxonomy maintained as code in .github/labels.yml (type:, area:, priority:, status:), so reports are consistently classified and triaged.



    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]

    Bug reports are consistently acknowledged and acted on. Of the 49 issues filed in the last 12 months, 18 are already closed, and bugs are typically triaged within a day — for example issue #547 (equivalence computed in the wrong unit) was filed 2026-07-28 and fixed and closed 2026-07-29 by PR #550. Every incoming report is labelled (type:bug, area:, priority:, status:triage), which is the acknowledgement step, and priority:critical bugs such as #395 and #391 were closed with fixes. To date no report has been left unanswered.



    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.

    Enhancement requests are triaged the same way as bugs: they are labelled type:feature (or type:refactor / type:tech-debt), given an area and a priority, and either scheduled or answered in the thread. Several have been implemented and shipped — for example the "optional comment on approving a submission" request (PR #409, released in 1.6.0) and the provider-agnostic backend auth refactor (#398, closed 2026-07-09). Requests that conflict with the project's country-agnosticism principle are answered with that rationale, as documented in .github/SUPPORT.md.



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

    The issue tracker is public, searchable and permanently archived at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/issues?q=is%3Aissue, covering both open and closed issues. Pull-request discussions are similarly public at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/pulls?q=is%3Apr, and GitHub Discussions is enabled for longer-form threads.


  • Vulnerability report process


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

    The vulnerability reporting process is published in https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/SECURITY.md. The declared security contact is the maintainer team collectively — the @undp/carbon-footprint-program-maintainers GitHub team (see https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS and https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) — so handling a report never depends on one individual's availability. SECURITY.md states that vulnerabilities must not be reported through public issues, discussions or pull requests, names GitHub private vulnerability reporting as the private channel, tells a reporter who cannot use it to open a detail-free issue requesting a private channel, and gives an escalation path to the maintainer team after 5 business days. It also lists what to include in a report and the in-scope and out-of-scope components.



    If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_private]
    Examples include a private defect report submitted on the web using HTTPS (TLS) or an email encrypted using OpenPGP. If vulnerability reports are always public (so there are never private vulnerability reports), choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    Private reporting is available through GitHub Private Vulnerability Reporting, which is enabled on the repository and reachable from the Security tab at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/security/advisories. It is documented as the preferred channel in https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/SECURITY.md. Reports go privately to the maintainer team collectively (@undp/carbon-footprint-program-maintainers) rather than to a named individual, which keeps the report, the discussion, the fix and any resulting advisory in one private place with no single point of failure. SECURITY.md explicitly asks reporters not to use public issues, discussions or pull requests, and offers a detail-free public issue as a way to request a private channel for anyone who cannot use GitHub PVR.



    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).

    https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/SECURITY.md publishes the maintainer team's commitment to acknowledge a vulnerability report within 3 business days — well inside the 14-day requirement — and tells reporters to escalate to the maintainer team if they have not heard back within 5 business days. It further commits to validating the issue, agreeing a remediation timeline with the reporter, and practising coordinated disclosure with credit unless the reporter prefers anonymity. In the interest of accuracy: this is the maintainer team's published working target, and formal ratification of the acknowledgement and remediation SLAs by UNDP as the owning organization is still in progress (tracked in issue #460).


 Quality 13/13

  • Working build system


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

    The software is built from source with two standard commands: "pnpm install" then "pnpm build". The root package.json "build" script drives Turborepo, which builds the shared packages (@repo/types, constants, utils, database, storage), the Fastify API and the React/Vite web app in dependency order. Prerequisites and exact toolchain versions are pinned in .tool-versions and .nvmrc and documented in https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/development/local-setup.md. CI proves the build works from a clean checkout on every pull request via the required "Build" job in .github/workflows/ci.yml.



    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).

    The build uses widely available, conventional tooling: Node.js, pnpm (workspaces), Turborepo, the TypeScript compiler (tsc), Vite for the web bundle, Prisma for schema/client generation, and Docker for containerization. There are no bespoke build tools to learn.



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

    Every tool required to build the project is FLOSS: Node.js, pnpm, Turborepo, TypeScript, Vite, Prisma, ESLint, Prettier, Vitest and Docker. The project can be built and tested end to end on a FLOSS platform with no proprietary software; a docker-compose setup provides Postgres, Keycloak and MinIO as open-source local dependencies.


  • Automated test suite


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

    The project has an automated test suite documented at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/development/testing.md. apps/api has 199 test files, of which 161 are integration tests that exercise real HTTP routes through Fastify's app.inject() against a real PostgreSQL instance provisioned with Testcontainers (plus Azurite and MinIO for the storage legs). apps/web adds 37 Vitest suites running under jsdom with React Testing Library. tools/seed has its own unit suite. The whole suite runs in CI on every pull request.



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

    The suite runs with the standard single command "pnpm test" from the repository root (Turborepo fans it out to every workspace). Narrower entry points exist for convenience: "pnpm test:api", "pnpm test:web", "pnpm test:seed", and "pnpm test:api -- /<feature>" for a single feature.



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

    The test suite covers most of the code and most of the functionality. apps/api — which holds essentially all of the business logic, including emission calculations, authorization, and the data layer — is gated in CI at 90% coverage for lines, statements, functions and branches, merged across the three test legs by the required "Coverage" job in .github/workflows/ci.yml. That gate is enforced on every pull request, so the figure is a floor rather than a snapshot, and every externally reachable endpoint has an integration test (161 integration test files exercising real HTTP routes against a real PostgreSQL instance via Testcontainers). Stated transparently: apps/web is covered by a smaller Vitest + jsdom + React Testing Library suite (37 files) over its logic layers — utils, hooks, stores, chatbot — behind an enforced floor that is deliberately ratcheted upward as tests are added, so a share of its render-heavy UI is not yet covered. The judgement recorded here is that a 90%-gated backend plus a growing frontend suite satisfies "most".



    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]

    Continuous integration runs the full suite on every pull request to main via .github/workflows/ci.yml. "Test (base)", "Test (storage-azure)", "Test (storage-minio)", "Test (web)", "Seed Unit Tests" and "Coverage" are required status checks under branch protection, alongside Lint, Type Check, Format Check, Build, Audit, Zizmor, Secret Scan and Docs Link Check. See https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/actions/workflows/ci.yml.


  • New functionality testing


    The project MUST have a general policy (formal or not) that as major new functionality is added to the software produced by the project, tests of that functionality should be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy]
    As long as a policy is in place, even by word of mouth, that says developers should add tests to the automated test suite for major new functionality, select "Met."

    The policy is written down in CONTRIBUTING.md under "Contribution acceptance criteria": "Test coverage — new features include integration tests" https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-acceptance-criteria. docs/development/testing.md gives the concrete conventions for writing them, and the policy is mechanically enforced by the 90% merged-coverage gate in CI, which fails a pull request that adds logic without adding tests.



    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.

    Tests accompany functional changes as a matter of course — apps/api currently carries 199 test files across 161 integration suites, grown alongside the features they cover, and apps/web has 37. The requirement is enforced rather than merely encouraged: the required "Coverage" check re-computes merged coverage across all three test legs and fails below 90% on lines, statements, functions and branches, so a feature pull request without matching tests cannot merge. Recent examples of test-only ratchets are PRs #509, #515 and #518.



    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.

    The policy is documented in two places: the "Contribution acceptance criteria" section of https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md, and the testing guide at https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/docs/development/testing.md, which explains the Vitest + Testcontainers setup, the app.inject() pattern, and the factory helpers a contributor should use when adding tests.


  • Warning flags


    The project MUST enable one or more compiler warning flags, a "safe" language mode, or use a separate "linter" tool to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. [warnings]
    Examples of compiler warning flags include gcc/clang "-Wall". Examples of a "safe" language mode include JavaScript "use strict" and perl5's "use warnings". A separate "linter" tool is simply a tool that examines the source code to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes. These are typically enabled within the source code or build instructions.

    Compiler and linter warnings are enabled at a strict level. TypeScript runs with "strict": true (packages/typescript-config/base.json), and ESLint uses typescript-eslint's recommendedTypeChecked configuration (packages/eslint-config/base.ts), which requires full type information and therefore reports type-aware problems, not just syntactic ones. Both run over the whole monorepo via "pnpm lint" and "pnpm type-check".



    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).

    There are no outstanding warnings, and the build enforces that: "pnpm lint" is invoked as "turbo run lint -- --max-warnings=0", so a single ESLint warning fails the required "Lint" status check, and "pnpm type-check" fails the required "Type Check" check on any TypeScript error. Both are required checks under branch protection, so warnings cannot accumulate on main.



    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.

    Maximally strict settings are enabled rather than the defaults: TypeScript "strict": true, and typescript-eslint's recommendedTypeChecked ruleset, which needs a full type-checked program and catches classes of bug (unsafe any flow, floating promises, unnecessary conditionals) that non-type-aware linting cannot see. Prettier formatting is separately enforced by a required "Format Check" job.


 Security 16/16

  • Secure development knowledge


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

    The maintainer team collectively (@undp/carbon-footprint-program-maintainers — see https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS and https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) holds and applies the knowledge of how to design secure software; this is asserted for the team rather than for one individual, matching how the project is actually governed and reviewed. The design record is public under docs/security/ https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/tree/main/docs/security: authentication.md (OIDC/JWKS token verification), rbac.md and route-access-modes.md (role-based authorization applied per route), hardening.md (deployment topologies, TLS enforcement, HTTP security headers, input validation, upload controls), secrets.md (Azure Key Vault with managed identities, no credentials in code), sensitive-data.md, audit-logging.md, and github-actions-security.md. The principles are visible in the code, not just the docs: least privilege via per-route role guards; fail-closed defaults — the API refuses to boot in production unless JWKS_URI, JWKS_ISSUER and JWKS_AUDIENCE are set, rather than silently accepting tokens it cannot bind to this application (apps/api/src/config/environment.ts); defense in depth (helmet headers, then schema validation, then authorization, then audit logging); minimal attack surface; and no trust in client-supplied identity. CONTRIBUTING.md requires an explicit maintainer security review for any change to auth, authorization, file upload or database queries, which is how the knowledge is applied structurally rather than incidentally. Complementary documents are SECURITY.md and PRIVACY.md.



    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).

    The maintainer team collectively (@undp/carbon-footprint-program-maintainers) holds this knowledge, and the codebase reflects it. Injection: all database access goes through Prisma's parameterized query builder; there is no string-concatenated SQL. Input validation: every request body, query and parameter is validated against a Zod schema at the route boundary (schemas live in packages/types), so unvalidated input never reaches business logic. Broken access control: authorization is enforced server-side by explicit requireAuth / requireRoles / requireOrganizationRole hooks per route, documented in docs/security/rbac.md and route-access-modes.md and covered by integration tests. XSS and header attacks: @fastify/helmet applies secure headers globally and React escapes by default. Insecure direct object references: domain access hooks verify organization membership before returning records. Secrets in code: Azure Key Vault with managed identities, plus GitHub secret scanning with push protection and a betterleaks CI gate over full git history. Race conditions and partial writes: multi-step mutations run inside Prisma transactions. These classes are also checked mechanically by CodeQL's security-and-quality suite on every push and pull request. The team also files its own hardening findings publicly rather than leaving them implicit — see issue #559, which pins an explicit JWT algorithms allowlist to close an algorithm-confusion surface found while preparing this badge.


  • Use basic good cryptographic practices

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

    The software produced by the project MUST use, by default, only cryptographic protocols and algorithms that are publicly published and reviewed by experts (if cryptographic protocols and algorithms are used). [crypto_published]
    These cryptographic criteria do not always apply because some software has no need to directly use cryptographic capabilities.

    The project uses only standard, published cryptographic protocols and algorithms: TLS 1.2+ for all transport, RSA/ECDSA signature verification of OIDC JWTs via JWKS (@fastify/jwt with jwks-rsa), SHA-2 family digests, and AES-256 for encryption at rest in Azure Storage. No proprietary or homegrown cryptography is used or implemented.



    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]

    The project does not implement cryptography itself; it calls established, well-reviewed implementations: Node.js node:crypto (OpenSSL) for random values, @fastify/jwt and jwks-rsa for JWT signature verification and key retrieval, and the platform TLS stacks of Azure Front Door, App Service and Static Web Apps for transport. Password handling is delegated entirely to the external OIDC identity provider.



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

    All cryptographic functionality relies on FLOSS implementations: Node.js and its bundled OpenSSL, @fastify/jwt (MIT), jwks-rsa (MIT), and — in the fully open local/self-hosted configuration — Keycloak as the OIDC provider and MinIO for object storage. No proprietary crypto implementation is required to run the software.



    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).

    All default key lengths meet or exceed the NIST minimums, and the application never generates its own long-term asymmetric keys — every key it relies on is issued by a platform service or the identity provider. TLS certificates are issued and managed by the Azure services that terminate TLS (Static Web Apps for the frontend and App Service for the API; Azure Front Door additionally where an adopting country chooses to deploy it), using 2048-bit RSA or ECDSA P-256 keys; minTlsVersion is pinned to 1.2 in the Bicep templates, so only suites with 128-bit-or-better symmetric keys are negotiated. OIDC token-signing keys are fetched from the provider's JWKS endpoint: the demo environment uses Microsoft Entra ID, which signs with RSA-2048, and Keycloak — the open-source option documented for self-hosting — also defaults to RSA-2048. Encryption at rest in Azure Storage is AES-256. Symmetric secrets the project does control (cookie signing) are supplied from Azure Key Vault, never from a checked-in default.



    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.

    The default configuration uses no broken or known-weak cryptographic algorithm or mode. TLS is pinned to a 1.2 minimum at every tier (infra/modules/appService.bicep, storage.bicep, frontDoor.bicep), excluding SSLv3, TLS 1.0 and 1.1 and their weak suites. MD5, SHA-1, DES, 3DES, RC4 and ECB mode are not used anywhere in the codebase; digests are SHA-2 family. Token signatures are verified against asymmetric public keys fetched from the identity provider's JWKS endpoint, and in production the API refuses to boot unless JWKS_URI, JWKS_ISSUER and JWKS_AUDIENCE are all set, so a token whose issuer or audience does not bind to this application is rejected (apps/api/src/config/environment.ts). Stated precisely rather than generously: the verify options pin issuer and audience but do not yet pin an explicit "algorithms" allowlist, so the accepted signature-algorithm set is currently inherited from the JWT library's key-type inference rather than asserted by the project. No broken algorithm is reachable, but that guarantee should be ours and not a dependency default — it is tracked publicly as a hardening item in issue #559 https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/issues/559.



    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.

    The default configuration does not depend on cryptographically broken primitives. MD5, SHA-1, DES, 3DES and RC4 are not used for any security purpose; digests are SHA-2 family, and TLS 1.2+ enforcement excludes SHA-1-signed handshake suites. Container base images and dependencies are pinned by SHA-256 digest, and pnpm verifies package integrity with SHA-512 hashes.



    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]

    Forward secrecy is provided by the Azure platform services that terminate TLS; the application implements no TLS itself and ships no certificate or cipher-suite configuration. In the default topology TLS terminates at Azure Static Web Apps (frontend) and Azure App Service (API, which faces the public internet directly in the demo environment); an adopting country may additionally place Azure Front Door in front, which is optional per deployment rather than required by the platform. All of these negotiate TLS 1.2+ with ECDHE (ephemeral Diffie-Hellman) key exchange, which gives perfect forward secrecy, and the Bicep templates pin minTlsVersion to 1.2 so no non-PFS legacy suite can be selected. Because Front Door is optional, this property does not depend on it — it holds in every supported topology. See docs/security/hardening.md, "Deployment topology" and "Transport Security".



    If the software produced by the project causes the storing of passwords for authentication of external users, the passwords MUST be stored as iterated hashes with a per-user salt by using a key stretching (iterated) algorithm (e.g., Argon2id, Bcrypt, Scrypt, or PBKDF2). See also OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet. [crypto_password_storage]
    This criterion applies only when the software is enforcing authentication of users using passwords for external users (aka inbound authentication), such as server-side web applications. It does not apply in cases where the software stores passwords for authenticating into other systems (aka outbound authentication, e.g., the software implements a client for some other system), since at least parts of that software must have often access to the unhashed password.

    The project does not store passwords for authentication of external users, so there is nothing to hash or salt. Authentication is delegated entirely to an external OpenID Connect identity provider (Microsoft Entra ID in the reference deployment, Keycloak in the open-source/local configuration). The API only verifies signed JWTs against the provider JWKS and never sees, transmits or persists a user credential; there is no local password table, reset flow, or credential column in the Prisma schema. See docs/security/authentication.md.



    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.

    All security-relevant random values come from a cryptographically secure PRNG: the project uses randomUUID() from Node.js node:crypto (backed by OpenSSL) for request identifiers (apps/api/src/app.ts), chatbot session identifiers, and the opaque UUIDs that name uploaded objects in storage (apps/api/src/features/files/requestUpload/service.ts and the carbon-inventory line-file equivalent). Math.random() is not used for any security purpose. Session and token generation itself is handled by the external OIDC provider.


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


    The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable. [delivery_mitm]
    An even stronger mechanism is releasing the software with digitally signed packages, since that mitigates attacks on the distribution system, but this only works if the users can be confident that the public keys for signatures are correct and if the users will actually check the signature.

    Distribution channels use HTTPS exclusively. Source is distributed by GitHub over HTTPS or SSH, so the transport is authenticated and integrity-protected. Dependencies are installed from the registry over HTTPS with "pnpm install --frozen-lockfile", and pnpm-lock.yaml records an integrity hash for every package. Container base images are pinned by SHA-256 digest, and all GitHub Actions are pinned to full commit SHAs rather than mutable tags, so the CI supply chain cannot be silently redirected.



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

    No cryptographic hash or signature is retrieved over an unprotected channel. Package integrity hashes are committed in pnpm-lock.yaml inside the repository itself and fetched from the registry only over HTTPS; container base-image digests are committed in the Dockerfiles; GitHub Action versions are committed as full commit SHAs. Nothing in the build downloads a checksum over plain HTTP or from an untrusted mirror.


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]
    The vulnerability must be patched and released by the project itself (patches may be developed elsewhere). A vulnerability becomes publicly known (for this purpose) once it has a CVE with publicly released non-paywalled information (reported, for example, in the National Vulnerability Database) or when the project has been informed and the information has been released to the public (possibly by the project). A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known. Note: this means that users might be left vulnerable to all attackers worldwide for up to 60 days. This criterion is often much easier to meet than what Google recommends in Rebooting responsible disclosure, because Google recommends that the 60-day period start when the project is notified even if the report is not public. Also note that this badge criterion, like other criteria, applies to the individual project. Some projects are part of larger umbrella organizations or larger projects, possibly in multiple layers, and many projects feed their results to other organizations and projects as part of a potentially-complex supply chain. An individual project often cannot control the rest, but an individual project can work to release a vulnerability patch in a timely way. Therefore, we focus solely on the individual project's response time. Once a patch is available from the individual project, others can determine how to deal with the patch (e.g., they can update to the newer version or they can apply just the patch as a cherry-picked solution).

    Known dependency vulnerabilities are surfaced and fixed continuously rather than on a 60-day clock. "pnpm audit --prod --audit-level moderate" runs as the required "Audit" status check on every pull request, so a moderate-or-higher advisory in the production dependency graph blocks merges until it is resolved. Dependabot security updates and alerts are enabled, with weekly version updates across the npm, docker and github-actions ecosystems (.github/dependabot.yml). A Trivy workflow scans dependencies and container images on pushes to main and on pull requests, and CodeQL runs on every push, pull request and weekly. Deliberate, time-boxed deferrals are tracked publicly in a periodic-review issue with an explicit re-check condition for each.



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

    Critical vulnerabilities are addressed promptly because the gates are blocking rather than advisory: the required "Audit" check fails the pull request on any moderate-or-higher advisory in the production dependency graph, so a critical one cannot reach main. Dependabot security updates open fix pull requests automatically, Trivy scans images and dependencies on push and pull request, and CodeQL findings land in GitHub code scanning for triage. Security-relevant issues are additionally labelled type:security and priority:critical in the tracker so they are visible and prioritized.


  • Other security issues


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

    No valid credential intended to limit public access is present in the repository, and three independent controls enforce that: GitHub secret scanning with push protection is enabled; a betterleaks job (the maintained gitleaks successor) runs on every pull request with fetch-depth 0, scanning the entire git history against .gitleaks.toml, and reports zero findings; and all .env* files are gitignored, with runtime secrets supplied from Azure Key Vault via managed identities (docs/security/secrets.md). Reported precisely: on main, apps/api/src/config/environment.ts still carries one hardcoded literal — a local-development HMAC fallback for JWT_SECRET. It is not a credential for any deployed system, because production fails closed and refuses to boot unless JWKS_URI, JWKS_ISSUER and JWKS_AUDIENCE are set, so the fallback cannot be used to accept forged tokens in a real deployment. It is nonetheless being removed outright for defense in depth: the change deletes the built-in default, makes AUTH_PROVIDER=jwks without JWKS_URI refuse to boot unless JWT_SECRET is set explicitly, and ships a throwaway value in .envrc.template and .env.dockercompose.example so local setup configures one deliberately. This entry will be tightened once that change is merged.


 Analysis 8/8

  • Static code analysis


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

    At least one static analysis tool with security relevance is applied to every proposed major production release, and in fact to every pull request. CodeQL runs the "security-and-quality" query suite on every push to main, every pull request, and on a weekly schedule, uploading results to GitHub code scanning (.github/workflows/codeql.yml). Alongside it: ESLint with typescript-eslint recommendedTypeChecked (full type-aware analysis), tsc --strict, zizmor auditing the GitHub Actions workflows for supply-chain and template-injection issues, Trivy scanning dependencies and container images, and betterleaks scanning git history for secrets. All of these are required status checks on pull requests to main. See https://github.com/undp/carbon-footprint-program/actions/workflows/codeql.yml.



    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.

    CodeQL is configured with the "security-and-quality" query suite, which is explicitly a look for common vulnerability patterns — injection, path traversal, unsafe deserialization, SSRF, hardcoded credentials, prototype pollution and the rest of the JavaScript/TypeScript CWE coverage — rather than style-only checks. Results are uploaded to GitHub code scanning. It is complemented by Trivy for known-CVE scanning of dependencies and images and zizmor for GitHub Actions-specific vulnerability classes.



    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.

    Findings are fixed rather than accumulated, because the analyzers are blocking gates. "Lint" runs with --max-warnings=0 and "Type Check" fails on any error; both are required checks. The zizmor and Secret Scan jobs fail the build on any finding. CodeQL alerts appear in GitHub code scanning and are triaged by the maintainer team, with security-relevant work tracked as type:security issues. Where a Trivy finding cannot yet be acted on, it is recorded as an explicit, reviewed exception in .trivyignore.yaml rather than silently ignored.



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

    Static analysis runs far more often than at each release: CodeQL on every push to main, every pull request, and weekly on a schedule; ESLint, tsc, zizmor, betterleaks and Trivy on every pull request; and the OpenSSF Scorecard workflow weekly and whenever branch protection changes. So every proposed change is analyzed before it can merge, and the scheduled runs catch newly published advisories against unchanged code.


  • Dynamic code analysis


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

    No dedicated dynamic security analysis tool is applied yet. The project does exercise the running system extensively — 161 integration tests drive real HTTP requests through the API against a real PostgreSQL instance (Testcontainers), plus Azurite and MinIO for the storage paths, and Zod schemas validate every request and response at runtime — but that is a functional suite, not a fuzzer or web-application scanner. Adding a DAST scan or fuzzing of the HTTP surface is recognized as future work; this criterion is SUGGESTED, not required, for the passing level.



    It is SUGGESTED that if the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]
    Examples of mechanisms to detect memory safety problems include Address Sanitizer (ASAN) (available in GCC and LLVM), Memory Sanitizer, and valgrind. Other potentially-used tools include thread sanitizer and undefined behavior sanitizer. Widespread assertions would also work.

    The project is written in TypeScript running on Node.js (with a small amount of shell and Bicep). These are memory-safe, garbage-collected environments with no manual memory management, no pointer arithmetic and no unchecked buffer access, so the memory-safety checkers this criterion refers to (ASan/valgrind-class tools) do not apply. There is no C, C++ or other unsafe-language code in the codebase.



    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.

    Runtime checks are enabled during test execution rather than compiled out. Every API request and response is validated against a Zod schema at the route boundary, and a schema violation throws — so the integration suite fails loudly on any contract breach, which is exactly the assertion behaviour this criterion asks for. TypeScript runs in strict mode, and the test environment additionally exercises the fail-closed configuration guards in apps/api/src/config/environment.ts. No assertion or validation layer is disabled in the test configuration.



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

    No dedicated dynamic analysis (fuzzing or DAST) is currently performed — see the dynamic_analysis criterion — so there are no dynamic-analysis findings, of medium severity or otherwise, outstanding to fix. Vulnerabilities discovered by any other route (CodeQL, Trivy, pnpm audit, Dependabot, or a private report under SECURITY.md) are triaged and fixed under the processes described in those criteria.



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 Kevin Johnson and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Kevin Johnson.
Entry created on 2026-07-29 16:37:34 UTC, last updated on 2026-07-30 01:15:24 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-07-29 16:59:38 UTC.