presidio-hardened-angellist

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 13877 is silver 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/13877/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13877)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13877"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13877/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 17/17

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    Presidio security-hardened deal-flow triage & due-diligence toolkit for early-stage (pre-seed / seed) startups sourced via AngelList syndicates.

    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.
  • 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]
  • 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.

    Every commit must carry a DCO Signed-off-by line, added with git commit -s, and pull requests whose commits are not signed off are asked to amend before merge. The requirement, the link to developercertificate.org, and the inbound = outbound MIT terms are documented at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#licensing-and-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.

    https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md documents the model actually in force: a single maintainer under a steward organisation (PRESIDIO Group, via the presidio-v GitHub org). Ordinary changes are decided by the reviewing maintainer on the pull request; security-relevant changes require an explicit security rationale against the enumerated security-sensitive modules and must not weaken an existing default; public-API and compatibility changes are governed by SEMVER.md; and disagreements that cannot be resolved on the pull request escalate to the steward organisation, whose decision is final.



    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.

    Contributor Covenant, posted at the standard repository location: https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md — linked from CONTRIBUTING.md, which states that participation is governed by it.



    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.

    Five roles are defined with their responsibilities and tasks at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#roles-and-responsibilities — steward organisation, maintainer, security contact, release manager, and contributor. Who holds which role is identifiable from the repository itself: the maintainer and code owner are listed in .github/CODEOWNERS, and the security contact address is published in SECURITY.md.



    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]

    Continuity is a property of the steward organisation rather than of one person, and rests on custody arrangements that actually exist for this repository. (a) The repository is owned by the presidio-v GitHub organisation, not a personal account, so organisation owners can grant repository and release access to another member at any time. (b) Publishing uses PyPI Trusted Publishing (OIDC) bound to this repository and the "pypi" deployment environment, which carries required-reviewer and branch-policy protection rules, so there is no personal long-lived API token that dies with an individual. (c) The release signing key's private half is held in the organisation's password manager, with custody ultimately at PRESIDIO Group leadership, rather than solely on one contributor's machine, so it is recoverable. (d) The release process is documented end to end — signed tag, tag-triggered publish.yml, OIDC publish, release assets — so any authorised engineer can cut a release by following it. (e) The public half of the signing key is committed as allowed_signers, so tag verification does not depend on any individual either. Issues can therefore be created and closed, changes accepted, and versions released within a week of losing any one individual. Documented at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#project-continuity



    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.

    https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#roles-and-responsibilities . Independent reviewer. Continuity is a property of the steward organisation rather than of one person, and rests on custody arrangements that actually exist for this repository. (a) The repository is owned by the presidio-v GitHub organisation, not a personal account, so organisation owners can grant repository and release access to another member at any time. (b) Publishing uses PyPI Trusted Publishing (OIDC) bound to this repository and the "pypi" deployment environment, which carries required-reviewer and branch-policy protection rules, so there is no personal long-lived API token that dies with an individual. (c) The release signing key's private half is held in the organisation's password manager, with custody ultimately at PRESIDIO Group leadership, rather than solely on one contributor's machine, so it is recoverable.


  • 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.

    https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist#next-12-months states what the project intends to do over the next year, in three bands. Now/in flight: the OpenSSF hardening layer — governance and assurance documentation, Scorecard, Bandit, SBOM, the Atheris fuzz harness, and this badge. Next: v0.8.0 with pluggable enrichment providers (Crunchbase, Harmonic) behind a stable interface and queue export/digest, plus the first signed release tag carrying SBOM and provenance. Later, explicitly marked as under evaluation rather than committed: a migration mechanism for the SQLite deal store, broader founder/traction signal extraction, and an independent third-party security review. The release history is kept as a separate section below it so the roadmap stays forward-looking.



    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.

    https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/ARCHITECTURE.md documents the high-level design: an overview of what the tool is and where state and network calls occur; a component table covering all sixteen modules in dependency order with each one's responsibility; the seven-step processing flow with its failure posture (security controls fail closed, optional enrichment fails open additively) and the orderings that are load-bearing; and a table of the eight trust boundaries with the control applied at each. Linked from the README.



    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.

    What the user can and cannot expect is documented in three linked places. https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/ASSURANCE.md gives the assurance case: the threat model with each adversary mapped to its control, and — importantly for expectations — an explicit out-of-scope list stating what the software does NOT protect against (prompt injection is mitigated but not solved, DNS rebinding, endpoint and account security, an operator-configured LLM endpoint, and the correctness of the investment judgement). https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SECURITY.md#data-handling--trust-boundaries documents the same boundaries operationally, control by control, including residual risks. https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SEMVER.md#behavioural-guarantees-stronger-than-api-stability lists the ten security invariants a downstream integrator may rely on, and states that weakening any of them is a breaking change.



    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 is the manual, and the quick-start path is its first two sections. https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist#installation is a single pip install line, followed immediately by https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist#cli-usage which opens with a runnable one-liner (angeltriage deal.eml) and shows its actual output, and https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist#library-usage which shows the three-line library equivalent. The deterministic path requires no API key and no configuration, so both examples work immediately after install.



    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.

    Documentation is updated in the same pull request as the change it describes, and CONTRIBUTING.md makes updating CHANGELOG.md under [Unreleased] a step in the change process. https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md is hand-written in Keep a Changelog format and covers every release through v0.7.1; SECURITY.md carries a per-version supported-versions table matching the current release; and the README's release history matches the git tags. Known documentation defects are treated as ordinary defects, tracked and fixed as such.



    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 OpenSSF Best Practices badge is displayed and hyperlinked at the top of the repository front page, alongside CI, CodeQL, and OpenSSF Scorecard badges: https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist#readme — the badge links to this project's entry on bestpractices.dev.


  • 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 project produces a developer library and a text-mode CLI, with no graphical or end-user interface, so the WCAG/ATAG surface does not apply to the project results. Terminal output is plain text with no reliance on colour to convey meaning, and is also available in machine-readable form via --json. The project sites are GitHub and PyPI, whose own accessibility conformance the project does not control.



    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.

    There are no localizable user-facing interface strings: the CLI emits English diagnostic and report text with no message catalogue, and the tool treats deal emails as opaque text to analyse rather than presenting a localized interface. Input is decoded according to the email's declared charset, so non-English deal content is parsed correctly.


  • 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.

    No passwords are stored.


 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]

    Both halves of the criterion are satisfied: two version lines are actively maintained, and a documented upgrade path exists for the rest. https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SECURITY.md#supported-versions states support per line — 0.7.x (current, latest 0.7.1) and 0.6.x are supported; 0.5.x through 0.2.x are marked superseded with an explicit instruction to upgrade to 0.7.x, noting that 0.5.x in particular should move up for the SSRF and dependency-CVE fixes; 0.1.x is end-of-life because it wrapped the AngelList Startup/Funding Data API, which has since been shut down, so no successor interface exists for it.
    The upgrade path itself is straightforward and documented rather than difficult. https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SEMVER.md defines the pre-1.0 semver profile: patch releases carry bug and security fixes with no API change and are safe to auto-upgrade; minor releases are additive only, so existing code keeps working, and deprecations are announced at least one minor before any change; only a major release may remove deprecated surface. It also defines precisely what counts as the public API (everything in presidio_angellist.all, the dataclass fields, the exception hierarchy, the angeltriage CLI contract, and the environment-variable contract), so an integrator can tell whether an upgrade can affect them. Integrators are advised to pin to the current minor and run the verification procedure at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SEMVER.md#verifying-an-installation on every upgrade.
    Per-release detail is in https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md, hand-written in Keep a Changelog format. Data compatibility is addressed explicitly: the SQLite deal store is opened rather than rewritten by an upgrade, and https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SEMVER.md#schemawire-stability states plainly that the store ships no migration mechanism today and that any future schema change will be announced in the changelog together with its upgrade path.


 Reporting 3/3

  • Bug-reporting process


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

    no vulnerabilities resolved in the last 12 months



    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 process is documented at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SECURITY.md#reporting-a-vulnerability and covers intake, timing, and outcome. Intake: reports are made privately, either as a GitHub Security Advisory through the repository's Security tab (preferred, with a direct link given) or by email to security@presidio-group.eu; the policy states explicitly that a suspected vulnerability must not be opened as a public issue. Reporters are asked for a description, reproduction steps, impact, and a suggested fix if they have one. Response commitments: acknowledgement within 5 business days, a patch targeted within 30 days of a confirmed vulnerability, and progress updates until the issue is either resolved or dismissed with a stated rationale. Resolution: fixes ship as patch releases on the latest supported minor line, with any minimum-safe dependency floors raised in the same release (https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SEMVER.md#security-response), the reporter is credited unless they request anonymity, and the project follows coordinated vulnerability disclosure. CONTRIBUTING.md points contributors at this same process so the private path is discoverable from the contribution instructions, not only from SECURITY.md.


 Quality 19/19

  • 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 primary and only language is Python. The style guide is ruff's implementation of PEP 8 with an explicit project configuration, declared under [tool.ruff] in https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/pyproject.toml — line length 99, target version py310, and the rule sets E, F, W (pycodestyle/pyflakes), I (import sorting), N (PEP 8 naming), UP (pyupgrade), S (flake8-bandit security), B (bugbear), A (builtin shadowing), C4, SIM, and TCH. Compliance is required of contributions and stated as such at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#style, which also records why each of the three project-wide rule exclusions exists and forbids blanket noqa suppressions of security findings. Formatting is not a matter of taste: ruff format is the single authority.



    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).

    Enforced automatically by ruff, a FLOSS tool, in CI. The test job of https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml runs both ruff check . and ruff format --check . on every push and every pull request, across all four supported Python versions, and fails the build on any finding. There is no warning-only mode and no advisory pass — main is protected with required status checks, so a non-conforming change cannot merge. The same commands are documented in the CONTRIBUTING local-verification block so contributors can reproduce the gate before pushing.


  • 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).

    No native binaries are generated. This is a pure-Python package built by hatchling through PEP 517; there is no compiler or linker invocation anywhere in the build, so CC, CFLAGS, CXX, CXXFLAGS, and LDFLAGS have nothing to be honoured against. The package contains no C extension, no ctypes, and no cffi.



    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.

    There are no compiled artifacts and therefore no debugging information to preserve or strip. The wheel contains Python source only; nothing resembling install -s occurs, because installation is performed by pip rather than by a make-style install step.



    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.

    There is no recursive build. The entire build is a single PEP 517 invocation (python -m build) with hatchling as the backend — no make, no subdirectory builds, and so no possibility of cross-dependencies between recursively-built subdirectories.



    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.

    No compilation occurs: this is a pure-Python project, and the criterion's own N/A clause for scripting languages whose source is used directly rather than compiled applies. The wheel and sdist produced by python -m build package the same .py source files that are executed at runtime; there is no compiler, no linker, and no generated binary or generated source whose bit-for-bit reproducibility could differ between builds. Separately, and not claimed here: the project pins its GitHub Actions to commit SHAs but declares runtime dependencies as version floors rather than an exact-pinned lockfile, so the resolved dependency set is not reproducible across time. That is a dependency-pinning gap rather than a build-determinism one, and it is recorded against external_dependencies rather than dressed up here.


  • 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.

    Standard PyPI install and uninstall, with no build step and no compiler required. Install: pip install presidio-hardened-angellist for the deterministic core, or pip install 'presidio-hardened-angellist[llm]' to add the Claude-backed extraction and memo. Uninstall: pip uninstall presidio-hardened-angellist. Both commands are the ordinary convention for the language, work identically under pip and uv, and are documented at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist#installation. The package declares a single console entry point (angeltriage) which pip installs and removes along with it, leaving nothing behind outside the operator's own data directory.



    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]

    Installation is performed by a language package manager (pip or uv) from PyPI, which manages its own target paths and respects its own environment (virtualenv, --target, --prefix). There is no POSIX-style install step, so DESTDIR does not apply — the criterion's "no standard convention" case.



    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.

    One documented path installs the package, the tests, and the full test environment: pip install -e ".[dev]", which pulls pytest, pytest-cov, ruff, responses, and pip-audit alongside the package in editable mode. The complete block, including virtualenv creation and the lint-plus-test verification command, is at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#local-verification, and the README repeats the uv equivalent (uv venv && uv pip install -e ".[dev,llm]"). Both are commonly-used conventions for Python. One caveat is documented rather than hidden: the Atheris fuzz extra is Linux-only, because Atheris publishes no macOS wheel and none for Python 3.10, so fuzzing runs in CI rather than locally on a developer Mac.


  • 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.

    Dependencies are declared machine-readably in https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/pyproject.toml under [project].dependencies and [project.optional-dependencies]: three runtime dependencies (requests, urllib3, idna) plus separate llm, dev, and fuzz extras. A CycloneDX SBOM is additionally generated in CI on every push and attached to each GitHub Release as sbom.cdx.json, giving a full transitive component list in a standard machine-readable format. Stated precisely: the manifest uses version floors, not an exact-pinned lockfile — there is no uv.lock in the repository, so the resolved graph can vary across time. Currency and vulnerability status are handled by Dependabot on both pip and GitHub Actions and by pip-audit gating every build.



    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.

    Three independent mechanisms, all continuous rather than periodic. pip-audit runs in the test job on every push and pull request and fails the build on any dependency with a known vulnerability, so an exploitable dependency cannot merge. Dependabot is configured for both pip and GitHub Actions with weekly checks (https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/.github/dependabot.yml), and Dependabot vulnerability alerts plus automated security-fix pull requests are enabled on the repository. OpenSSF Scorecard runs weekly and on push to main and independently scores dependency currency. There are no vendored or convenience copies to check separately — every reused component is an ordinary PyPI package installed by the package manager. Current state: pip-audit reports no known vulnerabilities and there are 0 open code-scanning alerts.



    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.

    Both halves of the criterion hold. The project leans heavily on the Python standard library — email, csv, html.parser, sqlite3, ssl, smtplib, imaplib, json, ipaddress, logging — so most reused functionality is the standard component provided by the language and updates with the interpreter. The three non-stdlib runtime dependencies are ordinary PyPI packages resolved by pip with no vendoring, no bundled copies, and no forks, so updating one is a version-floor change in pyproject.toml. This is exercised routinely rather than theoretically: the v0.6.0 release raised urllib3 and idna floors to close upstream CVEs, and merged PRs #21 through #34 are dependency and Action updates.



    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]

    Dependencies are kept current by Dependabot on both pip and GitHub Actions, with floors raised above known CVEs. The codebase targets Python 3.10+ and ruff's UP (pyupgrade) rule set runs in CI, which actively flags deprecated and superseded Python idioms and fails the build on them — so drift onto obsolete APIs is caught mechanically, not by inspection. Concretely, the code uses timezone-aware datetime handling, ipaddress for address classification, and ssl.create_default_context() rather than deprecated predecessors. The project's own public API surface is documented at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SEMVER.md with a stated deprecation policy: any deprecation is announced at least one minor release ahead, and removal may only occur in a major release.


  • 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.

    The full suite runs on every check-in to the shared repository — on every push to main and on every pull request targeting it — via https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml. It reports success or failure per job in the GitHub Actions UI and as commit status checks; the matrix legs test (3.10) through test (3.13) are required status checks on main, so a failing report blocks the merge rather than merely being recorded. 268 tests across 16 modules, on CPython 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13. Coverage figures are printed in the job log and coverage.xml is retained as a build artifact.



    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]

    Above 50% for the period, and verifiable from the merge history. Worked example: PR #20 (v0.7.1) fixed the local-LLM backend returning empty content for reasoning models — +95 lines in src/presidio_angellist/llm.py shipped with +71 lines in tests/test_llm.py in the same pull request. Every functional fix merged in the last six months (PRs #17, #18, #19, #20) carried its tests in the same change; the remaining merges in that window (PRs #21–#34) are dependency and Action-pinning updates with no behavioural surface to regress. The policy requiring this is written at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#tests, and the coverage gate makes an untested fix hard to land regardless.



    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.

    Measured statement coverage is 95.3%, well above the 80% bar, using coverage.py via pytest-cov — both FLOSS. The gate is enforced in CI rather than merely measured: the test job of https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml requires statement coverage of at least 90% and, separately, branch coverage of at least 80% (currently 86.0%), read from coverage.json. The two metrics are checked independently on purpose, because --cov-fail-under blends them into a single figure and would let branch coverage sag behind a high statement number. Both floors are enforced on all four supported Python versions.


  • 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]

    A formal written policy at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#tests states in mandatory terms: "any change that adds or modifies functionality must ship with tests in the same pull request," and bug fixes must include a regression test that fails before the fix and passes after it. The policy is backed by two enforcement mechanisms rather than good intentions — it is an explicit item on the reviewer's checklist in the Code review section, and the CI coverage floors (statement 90%, branch 80%) fail the build if new code arrives untested. CONTRIBUTING.md is the document contributors are pointed to, so the policy sits in the change-proposal instructions themselves.



    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 policy is stated in the contribution instructions themselves: https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#tests


  • 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.

    Enabled ruff rule sets, well beyond the E4/E7/E9/F default: E, F, W (pycodestyle/pyflakes), I (import sorting), N (naming), UP (pyupgrade), S (flake8-bandit security rules), B (bugbear), A (builtin shadowing), C4 (comprehensions), SIM (simplification), TCH (type-checking imports). Documented exclusions: S101 (bare assert is correct in tests), S603/S607 (inherited from the shared Presidio ruff profile; this package invokes no subprocess, so neither rule has anything to suppress), and N802 under fuzz/ because Atheris dispatches on the exact function name TestOneInput.


 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).

    Argued per principle, grounded in real controls, at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/ASSURANCE.md#3-secure-design-principles-applied. Fail-safe defaults: every network capability is off until the operator enables it (enrichment needs --enrich, LLM steps need a configured backend, IMAP and SMTP need environment credentials), and each security control raises rather than degrading — a non-HTTPS scheme, a non-public host, an invalid weights file, or plaintext IMAP stops the operation. Complete mediation: the scheme check, HTTPS upgrade, SSRF guard, and rate limiter live inside HardenedSession.request, and log redaction is a logging.Filter attached to the package logger at import, so neither can be bypassed or forgotten by a future caller — a new _log.info anywhere in the package is covered the moment it is written. Least privilege: the project holds no long-lived secret of its own, opens the IMAP mailbox read-only, publishes via short-lived OIDC credentials rather than a stored token, and declares read-only top-level tokens in every workflow with only the single job needing security-events: write elevating. Defence in depth: transport hardening, destination validation, log hygiene, input hygiene, and supply-chain controls are independent layers, and because the scoring rubric is deterministic and model-free, a successful prompt injection cannot change the score, only the advisory prose. Economy of mechanism: no cryptography is implemented, stdlib parsers are used throughout, and the runtime dependency set is three packages.


  • 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 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]


    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]


    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]


    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]


    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]


    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]

  • 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.

    Met as of v0.7.2. Three independent signatures cover each release, and the private key for none of them lives on a distribution site. (1) The release git tag is SSH-signed with the organisation's release key; GitHub reports it Verified (the API's verification.verified is true for v0.7.2) and it verifies locally with git -c gpg.ssh.allowedSignersFile=allowed_signers verify-tag v0.7.2. The key's private half is held only in the organisation's password manager and is never on PyPI, GitHub, or a build runner; only the public half is committed, as https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/allowed_signers. (2) A Sigstore-backed in-toto build-provenance attestation is produced over the artifacts by the tag-triggered workflow and attached to the GitHub Release as provenance.intoto.jsonl, alongside a CycloneDX SBOM; it verifies with gh attestation verify <artefact> --repo presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist. (3) The PyPI artifacts carry PEP 740 attestations issued through Trusted Publishing (OIDC), retrievable from PyPI's integrity API; signing uses ambient short-lived credentials, so again there is no long-lived private key anywhere, least of all on the index. The documented verification process for all three is at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SECURITY.md#verifying-releases-and-obtaining-public-signing-keys. Note for completeness: tags up to and including v0.7.1 predate tag signing and are unsigned, since a published tag cannot be re-signed; signed tags begin at v0.7.2.



    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]

    Met as of v0.7.2. The release tag is SSH-signed with the organisation's release key and verifiable both ways: GitHub reports it as Verified (verification.verified is true via gh api repos/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/git/tags/<sha>), and it verifies locally against the public key committed in the repository with git -c gpg.ssh.allowedSignersFile=allowed_signers verify-tag v0.7.2, which reports a good signature for ED25519 key SHA256:MLin275d/xTVoZqBhyHETA8iZ7xfX29es/L2PdedxPw. The verification procedure is documented at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/SECURITY.md#verifying-releases-and-obtaining-public-signing-keys, as required by signed_releases. Stated plainly: the three earlier tags (v0.6.0, v0.7.0, v0.7.1) predate the adoption of tag signing and remain unsigned, because a published tag cannot be retroactively signed. Every tag from v0.7.2 onward is signed.


  • 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.

    Untrusted input is checked at the boundary before use, with the boundaries enumerated at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/ARCHITECTURE.md#trust-boundaries. Operator configuration is allowlisted and fails closed: a --rubric file is rejected outright if it contains any top-level key outside the recognised set, with the error naming the valid keys, and a --weights file is rejected on an unknown rubric dimension, a non-numeric, negative, or boolean value, a non-object document, or an all-zero weight set, raising WeightsConfigError rather than silently substituting a default — a typo in a weights file must not quietly change how a deal scores. Deal-workflow status values are likewise restricted to a fixed tuple. For free-form untrusted content, where an allowlist of values is not meaningful, the restriction enforced is structural: forwarded emails and CSVs are parsed only by the stdlib email and csv modules, HTML is reduced to text by an html.parser subclass that drops script, style, head, and title rather than interpreting them, and the extracted text can only populate typed dataclass fields — it never reaches a shell, a SQL statement, the filesystem, or an eval. On the egress side the company URL extracted from that untrusted email is validated before any fetch: the scheme must be HTTPS (http is upgraded, anything else refused) and assert_public_host resolves the host and rejects loopback, private, link-local including 169.254.169.254, reserved, multicast, and unspecified addresses, checking every resolved address and unwrapping IPv4-mapped IPv6. The parsing path is additionally fuzzed with Atheris in CI.



    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).

    Hardening mechanisms in place, all verifiable in the repository. At runtime: TLS 1.2 floor with mandatory certificate and hostname verification and an ephemeral-EC-only cipher list on all egress; HTTP upgraded to HTTPS and other schemes refused; an SSRF guard on every attacker-influenced fetch; sink-level secret redaction via a logging filter installed at import, so credentials cannot reach a log even from a call site that forgets to redact; credentials read from environment variables only and never accepted as command-line arguments, which would expose them in ps output and shell history; plaintext IMAP refused unless explicitly overridden; the IMAP mailbox opened read-only; fully parameterized SQL; and bounded retries, per-host rate limiting, and explicit timeouts to limit resource exhaustion. In the supply chain: every GitHub Action pinned to a commit SHA; read-only top-level workflow tokens with elevation only in the one job that needs it; persist-credentials: false on checkouts; protected main with required status checks and admin enforcement; OIDC Trusted Publishing with no stored PyPI token, behind a required-reviewer deployment environment; and SBOM plus build-provenance attestation on releases. Not applicable here: there is no container image, so no base-image digest pinning, and Python provides memory safety without needing compiler hardening flags.



    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.

    https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/ASSURANCE.md is the assurance case and contains all four required elements. (1) Threat model, section 1: names the two assets — the analyst's machine and network position, since the tool ingests email from strangers and on request fetches URLs those strangers chose, and the analyst's credentials plus commercially sensitive deal data — then maps twelve concrete threats each to the control that counters it, and states five out-of-scope items explicitly rather than leaving them implied (prompt injection is mitigated but not solved, DNS rebinding, endpoint and account security, the operator-configured LLM endpoint, and correctness of the investment judgement). (2) Trust boundaries, section 2: eight boundaries, each named, classified as input-validation or egress, and given its control, cross-referenced to the canonical table in ARCHITECTURE.md#trust-boundaries. (3) Secure design principles, section 3: fail-safe defaults, complete mediation, least privilege, defence in depth, and economy of mechanism, each argued against specific code rather than asserted. (4) Common implementation weaknesses, section 4: a table of ten weakness classes — CWE-20/74 including prompt injection, CWE-89, the CWE-119 memory-safety family, CWE-327/916, CWE-798/532, CWE-319/295/918, CWE-502, CWE-400, CWE-1104, CWE-1357 — each mapped to a control and to the tool that checks it, followed by the named SAST and posture tooling actually run. The document also records plainly that no independent third-party security review has been commissioned, and does not claim one.


 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.

    CodeQL's security-extended suite specifically targets common vulnerability classes (injection, path traversal, SSRF, unsafe deserialization, weak crypto), and Bandit adds a Python-specific pass over the same classes. The weakness classes this project is exposed to are enumerated and each mapped to both a control and the tool that checks it at https://github.com/presidio-v/presidio-hardened-angellist/blob/main/ASSURANCE.md#4-common-implementation-weaknesses-countered. pip-audit covers the dependency-CVE side and fails the build on any known-vulnerable package. All are currently clean, with 0 open code-scanning alerts.


  • 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.

    The test suite is assertion-based (pytest, 268 tests) and nothing runs under -O, so assertions are checked. The fuzz job likewise invokes python without -O and does not set PYTHONOPTIMIZE, so runtime assertions stay enabled during fuzzing.



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 Vladimir Stantchev and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Vladimir Stantchev.
Entry created on 2026-07-29 20:26:21 UTC, last updated on 2026-07-29 21:38:04 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-07-29 21:01:00 UTC.