hostmic

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

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

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 16465 is baseline-2 Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/16465/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/16465)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/16465"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/16465/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 3 criteria. These are criteria version v2026.08.28.

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

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    Open-source Windows virtual microphone driver fed by a user-mode host, in Rust (experimental)The README explains what hostmic is (a Windows virtual microphone driver fed by a user-mode host) and the problem it solves (the latency and dropouts of virtual audio cables).

    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.

    hostmic is an experimental Windows kernel-mode driver (PortCls/WaveRT) written in Rust: a virtual microphone whose audio will be supplied by a user-mode host application through a shared ring buffer. It is developed milestone by milestone (see PLAN.md); as of November 2026 the driver exposes a working capture endpoint that plays a built-in test tone, verified in a test VM. There is no release yet, and the driver is unsigned: it can only be loaded with test signing enabled, in a virtual machine. Kernel code that cannot run in host unit tests is tested in a Hyper-V VM following docs/test-vm.md; logic without kernel calls is kept in host-testable crates.

 Controls 20/21 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

    When a job is assigned permissions in a CI/CD pipeline, the source code or configuration MUST only assign the minimum privileges necessary for the corresponding activity. [OSPS-AC-04.02]
    Configure the project's CI/CD pipelines to assign the lowest available permissions to users and services by default, elevating permissions only when necessary for specific tasks. In some version control systems, this may be possible at the organizational or repository level. If not, set permissions at the top level of the pipeline.

    Each workflow sets top-level permissions to contents: read or none, and each job adds only what it needs: CodeQL security-events: write to upload results; Scorecard security-events and id-token write, only on main and on a schedule; every other job is read-only. The repository default token is read-only. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/tree/main/.github/workflows


    Enough for a badge!

    CI/CD pipelines which accept trusted collaborator input MUST sanitize and validate that input prior to use in the pipeline. [OSPS-BR-01.04]
    CI/CD pipelines should sanitize (quote, escape or exit on expected values) all collaborator inputs on explicit workflow executions. While collaborators are generally trusted, manual inputs to a workflow cannot be reviewed and could be abused by an account takeover or insider threat.

    No workflow accepts collaborator input: workflow_dispatch has no inputs, and no script interpolates event data (only github.event_name comparisons and matrix values defined in the workflow; pull request SHAs reach the DCO script through environment variables). zizmor, which detects template injection, is a required check on every pull request.


    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, all assets within that release MUST be clearly associated with the release identifier or another unique identifier for the asset. [OSPS-BR-02.02]
    Assign a unique version identifier to each software asset produced by the project, following a consistent naming convention or numbering scheme. Examples include SemVer, CalVer, or git commit id.

    No release has been made yet. Release assets will be attached to the GitHub release of their v* tag and named with the version, with build provenance attestations tying each asset to the tag and commit (PLAN.md, M7).


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST define a policy for managing secrets and credentials used by the project. The policy should include guidelines for storing, accessing, and rotating secrets and credentials. [OSPS-BR-07.02]
    Document how secrets and credentials are managed and used within the project. This should include details on how secrets are stored (e.g., using a secrets management tool), how access is controlled, and how secrets are rotated or updated. Ensure that sensitive information is not hard-coded in the source code or stored in version control systems.

    SECURITY.md, "Secrets and credentials": no CI secrets and per-job token permissions, the layers that keep secrets out of the repository, where release signing credentials are kept (maintainer only, hardware token or password manager, keyless OIDC attestations in CI), rotation on exposure, departure or expiry, least privilege. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/SECURITY.md#secrets-and-credentials


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST contain instructions to verify the integrity and authenticity of the release assets. [OSPS-DO-03.01]
    Instructions in the project should contain information about the technology used, the commands to run, and the expected output. When possible, avoid storing this documentation in the same location as the build and release pipeline to avoid a single breach compromising both the software and the documentation for verifying the integrity of the software.

    No release has been made yet. Release assets will carry GitHub build provenance attestations; the release notes will document how to verify them (gh attestation verify) and the Authenticode signature of the driver.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST contain instructions to verify the expected identity of the person or process authoring the software release. [OSPS-DO-03.02]
    The expected identity may be in the form of key IDs used to sign, issuer and identity from a sigstore certificate, or other similar forms. When possible, avoid storing this documentation in the same location as the build and release pipeline to avoid a single breach compromising both the software and the documentation for verifying the integrity of the software.

    No release has been made yet. The release documentation will explain how to check that an asset was built by the repository's release workflow (attestation signer identity) and signed by the expected publisher.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include a descriptive statement about the scope and duration of support for each release. [OSPS-DO-04.01]
    In order to communicate the scope and duration of support for the project's released software assets, the project should have a SUPPORT.md file, a "Support" section in SECURITY.md, or other documentation explaining the support lifecycle, including the expected duration of support for each release, the types of support provided (e.g., bug fixes, security updates), and any relevant policies or procedures for obtaining support.

    No release has been made yet. SECURITY.md, "Supported versions", states that no version is supported yet; the support scope and duration of each release will be stated there from the first release.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST provide a descriptive statement when releases or versions will no longer receive security updates. [OSPS-DO-05.01]
    In order to communicate the scope and duration of support for security fixes, the project should have a SUPPORT.md or other documentation explaining the project's policy for security updates.

    No release has been made yet. SECURITY.md, "Supported versions", will state when each release stops receiving security updates, from the first release.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST have a policy that code collaborators are reviewed prior to granting escalated permissions to sensitive resources. [OSPS-GV-04.01]
    Publish an enforceable policy in the project documentation that requires code collaborators to be reviewed and approved before being granted escalated permissions to sensitive resources, such as merge approval or access to secrets. It is recommended that vetting includes establishing a justifiable lineage of identity such as confirming the contributor's association with a known trusted organization.

    GOVERNANCE.md, "Granting access": escalated permissions only after the maintainer has reviewed the person's contributions and account (with GitHub 2FA), at the lowest level needed and recorded in the same change; reviewed at least yearly and removed when no longer needed. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#granting-access


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, all compiled released software assets MUST be delivered with a software bill of materials. [OSPS-QA-02.02]
    It is recommended to auto-generate SBOMs at build time using a tool that has been vetted for accuracy. This enables users to ingest this data in a standardized approach alongside other projects in their environment.

    No release has been made yet. Compiled release assets will be delivered with a software bill of materials generated by the release workflow (PLAN.md, M7).


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release comprising multiple source code repositories, all subprojects MUST enforce security requirements that are as strict or stricter than the primary codebase. [OSPS-QA-04.02]
    Any additional subproject code repositories produced by the project and compiled into a release must enforce security requirements as applicable to the status and intent of the respective codebase. In addition to following the corresponding OSPS Baseline requirements, this may include requiring a security review, ensuring that it is free of vulnerabilities, and ensuring that it is free of known security issues.

    The project is a single repository (a Cargo workspace); there are no subprojects in other repositories.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST clearly document when and how tests are run. [OSPS-QA-06.02]
    Add a section to the contributing documentation that explains how to run the tests locally and how to run the tests in the CI/CD pipeline. The documentation should explain what the tests are testing and how to interpret the results.

    CONTRIBUTING.md, "Build and test": the commands (cargo fmt, clippy, cargo test, cargo wdk build), that CI runs them on every pull request as required checks, and that the driver itself is tested in a virtual machine following docs/test-vm.md. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#build-and-test


    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST include a policy that all major changes to the software produced by the project should add or update tests of the functionality in an automated test suite. [OSPS-QA-06.03]
    Add a section to the contributing documentation that explains the policy for adding or updating tests. The policy should explain what constitutes a major change and what tests should be added or updated.

    CONTRIBUTING.md, "Tests": new functionality comes with automated tests (host-side unit tests for logic without kernel calls) or, for kernel-only code, a reproducible procedure in docs/test-vm.md; a pull request says how it was tested. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#tests


    Not enough for a badge.

    When a commit is made to the primary branch, the project's version control system MUST require at least one non-author human approval of the changes before merging. [OSPS-QA-07.01]
    Configure the project's version control system to require at least one non-author human approval of changes before merging into the release or primary branch. This can be achieved by requiring a pull request to be reviewed and approved by at least one other collaborator before it can be merged.

    Single-maintainer project: there is no other human to approve changes. The "Protect main" ruleset requires a code-owner approval, but the sole maintainer merges through the admin bypass (pull requests only). To be met when a second maintainer joins (GOVERNANCE.md).


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project MUST perform a threat modeling and attack surface analysis to understand and protect against attacks on critical code paths, functions, and interactions within the system. [OSPS-SA-03.02]
    Threat modeling is an activity where the project looks at the codebase, associated processes and infrastructure, interfaces, key components and "thinks like a hacker" and brainstorms how the system be be broken or compromised. Each identified threat is listed out so the project can then think about how to proactively avoid or close off any gaps/vulnerabilities that could arise. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    No release has been made yet. PLAN.md, "Security", lists the attack surface (IOCTLs, buffer mapping into the host, device access control) and its mitigations; a threat model and attack surface analysis is part of milestone M6, before any release.


    Enough for a badge!

    Any vulnerabilities in the software components not affecting the project MUST be accounted for in a VEX document, augmenting the vulnerability report with non-exploitability details. [OSPS-VM-04.02]
    Establish a VEX feed communicating the exploitability status of known vulnerabilities, including assessment details or any mitigations in place preventing vulnerable code from being executed.

    No vulnerability is currently known in the project's dependencies (no open Dependabot or code scanning alert). SECURITY.md commits to recording any dependency vulnerability that does not affect hostmic as a VEX statement in a published advisory. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/SECURITY.md#coordinated-disclosure


    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST include a policy that defines a threshold for remediation of SCA findings related to vulnerabilities and licenses. [OSPS-VM-05.01]
    Document a policy in the project that defines a threshold for remediation of SCA findings related to vulnerabilities and licenses. Include the process for identifying, prioritizing, and remediating these findings.

    SECURITY.md, "Dependencies": remediation thresholds for vulnerability findings (critical and high within 14 days, medium within 30 days, low at the next release) and the license rule (permissive OSI licenses only, others removed before merging). https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/SECURITY.md#dependencies-software-composition-analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST include a policy to address SCA violations prior to any release. [OSPS-VM-05.02]
    Document a policy in the project to address applicable Software Composition Analysis results before any release, and add status checks that verify compliance with that policy prior to release.

    SECURITY.md, "Dependencies": before any release, no open dependency finding (vulnerability or license) above low severity, unless documented as not affecting hostmic. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/SECURITY.md#dependencies-software-composition-analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    All changes to the project's codebase MUST be automatically evaluated against a documented policy for malicious dependencies and known vulnerabilities in dependencies, then blocked in the event of violations, except when declared and suppressed as non-exploitable. [OSPS-VM-05.03]
    Create a status check in the project's version control system that runs a Software Composition Analysis tool on all changes to the codebase. Require that the status check passes before changes can be merged.

    Every pull request runs the "dependencies" check (GitHub dependency review, fail-on-severity: low), a required check of the "Protect main" ruleset: a change adding or updating a dependency with a known vulnerability or a malware advisory is blocked, as SECURITY.md documents; exceptions need a written non-exploitability statement. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/.github/workflows/security.yml


    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST include a policy that defines a threshold for remediation of SAST findings. [OSPS-VM-06.01]
    Document a policy in the project that defines a threshold for remediation of Static Application Security Testing (SAST) findings. Include the process for identifying, prioritizing, and remediating these findings.

    SECURITY.md, "Static analysis (SAST)": high and critical findings block merging, medium ones are fixed or dismissed with a written justification before merging, low ones before the next release. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/SECURITY.md#static-analysis-sast


    Enough for a badge!

    All changes to the project's codebase MUST be automatically evaluated against a documented policy for security weaknesses and blocked in the event of violations except when declared and suppressed as non-exploitable. [OSPS-VM-06.02]
    Create a status check in the project's version control system that runs a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool on all changes to the codebase. Require that the status check passes before changes can be merged.

    CodeQL analyses every pull request and the "Protect main" ruleset requires code scanning results with no CodeQL alert of high or higher security severity; clippy (with -D warnings, in the required driver check) and zizmor (required check) also block merging. Dismissals keep their justification in code scanning, as SECURITY.md documents. https://github.com/Nopitch/hostmic/blob/main/SECURITY.md#static-analysis-sast



You can use tools and AI systems to propose changes via a simple URL, such as https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/16465/choose/edit?osps_ac_01_01_status=Met&osps_ac_01_01_justification=GitHub+enforced. See our automation proposals system for how to do that. 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 Nopitch and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Nopitch.
Entry created on 2026-11-08 21:01:59 UTC, last updated on 2026-11-08 23:31:07 UTC.