wasmCloud

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 6363 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/6363/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/6363)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/6363"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/6363/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.

    wasmCloud is a cloud native platform for running WebAssembly workloads across any cloud, Kubernetes, datacenter, or edge.

    Using wasmCloud, you can run microservices, functions, and agents as ultra-dense, deny-by-default bytecode sandboxes that are far more secure and efficient than traditional containers.

    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


    Enough for a badge!

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

  • Basic project website content


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md under #code-style-and-conventions

    Enforced via CI: https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/.github/workflows/wash.yml


  • Project oversight


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    All contributions must include DCO signoffs as per CNCF requirements.
    Example: https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/pull/894/checks


    Enough for a badge!

    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/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/CONTRIBUTION_LADDER.md


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    We have more than one organization owner and maintainer with access to each part of the org.
    https://github.com/orgs/wasmCloud/people


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    At least eight people each made 20 or more commits in the past year, MAINTAINERS.md (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md) lists the maintainer teams, and CODEOWNERS assigns every path to the org-maintainers team. Releases are automated (RELEASE_RUNBOOK.md), so no single person is required to keep the project going.


  • Documentation


    Enough for a badge!

    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/orgs/wasmCloud/projects/7


    Enough for a badge!

    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://wasmcloud.com/docs/overview/#the-architecture describes the high-level design (runtime-operator, hosts, NATS transport, workloads of components and services, interfaces, host plugins), with linked pages for each part. The Kubernetes deployment architecture is at https://wasmcloud.com/docs/kubernetes-operator/operator-manual/overview/, and the host's trust boundaries are in https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/THREAT_MODEL.md#trust-boundaries.


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/SECURITY.md and https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/THREAT_MODEL.md


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://wasmcloud.com/docs/quickstart


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://wasmcloud.com/docs/intro


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/


  • Accessibility and internationalization


    Enough for a badge!

    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's sites and results follow accessibility best practices where reasonable:

    • Project collaboration happens on GitHub (code, issues, pull requests, discussions), which maintains its own accessibility program and WCAG conformance (https://accessibility.github.com/).
    • The documentation site, https://wasmcloud.com/docs/, is built with Docusaurus 3, which provides semantic HTML, a "Skip to main content" link, keyboard navigation, ARIA landmarks, and light and dark themes that respect the user's system preference. Content is written as text with headings, code blocks and alt-text images, so it works with screen readers.
    • The software is a command-line tool and server components. wash produces plain text output that works with screen readers and terminal magnifiers, and offers machine-readable JSON output (--output json) for users who process output with assistive or automation tools. The runtime operator is configured through standard Kubernetes resources and Helm values, which users can manage with any accessible editor or tool.
    • Community calls are recorded and published, and project discussion is asynchronous and text-based (GitHub and Slack), so participation does not depend on real-time audio.

    Barely enough for a badge.

    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.

    wasmCloud's software is developer and operator infrastructure (the wash CLI, the host runtime, and a Kubernetes operator), and its messages, logs and errors are in English only; they are not yet externalized for translation. The software is otherwise locale-neutral: all text is handled as UTF-8, it does no locale-sensitive sorting or formatting of human-readable text, timestamps in logs and telemetry use RFC 3339/UTC, and wash offers machine-readable JSON output (--output json) so tools in any language can consume results. Localization of CLI messages has not been requested by the community; we would accept contributions toward it.


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    We do not store passwords for authentication of external users.


 Change Control 1/1 ●

  • Previous versions


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    wasmCloud makes an effort to maintain all stable APIs across versions.

    The one major upgrade so far, v1 to v2, has a step-by-step migration guide at https://wasmcloud.com/docs/migration/. It covers what changed and why, an architecture comparison, a concept migration map from v1 to v2, and instructions for migrating capability providers, applications, secrets, configuration and distributed networking, plus what was intentionally removed. The v1 documentation remains available at https://wasmcloud.com/docs/v1/ for users still on v1.


 Reporting 3/3 ●

  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

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

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/issues


  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/security/advisories


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/SECURITY.md


 Quality 19/19 ●

  • Coding standards


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    With all our Rust codebases we require PRs to pass cargo check, audit, and clippy format + lints https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/.github/workflows/wash.yml


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    With all our Rust codebases we require PRs to pass cargo clippy format + lints coding styles https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/.github/workflows/wash.yml


  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    We simply compile using cargo flags


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    We simply build using cargo flags


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    We don't recursively build subdirectories


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Rust supports bit-for-bit builds https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/34902


  • Installation system


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    We support installation in a wide variety of ways on https://wasmcloud.com/docs/installation, in addition to just cargo install or curling a github release tarball.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    No custom installation system


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    We support simply using a standard Rust toolchain or using a devcontainer to make changes.


  • Externally-maintained components


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/Cargo.toml


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    We have Dependabot enabled across our key repositories


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/Cargo.toml


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    We do not use deprecated functions and APIs


  • Automated test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    We report multiple automated test suites for each check-in.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    We have a vast set of regression tests in our wasmbus test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Statement coverage is measured in CI with cargo-llvm-cov (FLOSS) on every push to main (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/actions/workflows/coverage.yml), and the job fails if line or region coverage drops below 80% (xtask/src/coverage.rs). The latest run on main reports 83.34% line coverage: https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/actions/runs/41673826482/job/126048957835.


  • New functionality testing


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The contribution guide requires tests for new functionality. Its pull request process (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request-process) says contributors must write tests for any new functionality and ensure all tests pass, and its testing section (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing) requires unit tests for new functionality, integration tests for CLI commands where appropriate, and tests for error cases and edge conditions. All changes go through reviewed pull requests, and the automated test suites run in GitHub Actions on every pull request (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/actions).


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project's instructions for change proposals include the policy. The Pull Request Process in the contribution guide (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request-process) lists "Write tests for any new functionality" as a required step before submitting a pull request, and its Testing section (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing) requires unit tests for new functionality and integration tests for CLI commands where appropriate. The pull request template (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/.github/pull_request_template.md) points every contributor to this guide.


  • Warning flags


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Fails builds if cargo clippy is not satisfied or if formatting is incorrect


 Security 13/13 ●

  • Secure development knowledge


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    All controls are deny-by-default and is designed to be secure by default. See our THREAT_MODEL.md https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud


  • 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.

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    wasmCloud's default security mechanisms use no algorithms or modes with known serious weaknesses. TLS (inbound ingress, outbound wasi:http, OCI registries, NATS) uses rustls 0.23 with the aws-lc-rs provider, which implements only TLS 1.2 and 1.3 with AEAD cipher suites (AES-GCM, ChaCha20-Poly1305) and ECDHE key exchange; it has no SSLv3, RC4, 3DES, CBC-mode or SHA-1 signature support enabled by default. Component content is identified by SHA-256 OCI digests (crates/wash-runtime/src/component_source.rs). The project's code does not use SHA-1, MD5, DES or RC4. The only weak primitive in the dependency tree is MD5 in postgres-protocol, used solely when a Postgres server is configured for legacy MD5 password authentication; SCRAM-SHA-256 is used otherwise.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    wasmCloud supports multiple cryptographic algorithms through rustls 0.23 with the aws-lc-rs provider, which it uses for all TLS (HTTP ingress, outbound wasi:http, OCI registries, NATS). Symmetric ciphers: AES-128-GCM, AES-256-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305. Hashes: SHA-256 and SHA-384 in the TLS 1.2 and 1.3 cipher suites. Key exchange: X25519, P-256 and P-384 ECDHE, plus the X25519MLKEM768 post-quantum hybrid. Signatures: ECDSA (P-256, P-384), Ed25519 and RSA-PSS/PKCS#1 with SHA-2. The algorithm is negotiated per connection, so a peer that disables one algorithm (for example a server restricting its suites) still interoperates using another. wasmCloud does not hard-code any algorithm, so one found to be broken is removed by a rustls/aws-lc-rs update without changing wasmCloud code. Content digests use SHA-256 via the OCI digest format, which names its algorithm and so allows others such as SHA-512.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Keys, certificates and credentials are kept separate from the code and supplied at runtime, so they can be replaced without rebuilding: TLS server certificate and key paths (--tls-cert-path, --tls-key-path), client CA bundles (--tls-ca-path, --http-client-ca-path, --oci-ca-path), outbound client certificates (--http-client-cert-path, --http-client-key-path), NATS TLS and credential files (--scheduler-nats-tls-, --data-nats-tls-), OCI registry credentials, and workload secrets delivered through wasmcloud:secrets. See crates/wash/src/cli/host.rs. NATS credential files are reread when they change, so credentials can be rotated without restarting the host.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Outbound connections default to encrypted protocols: OCI registry pulls use HTTPS unless an operator explicitly sets --allow-insecure-registries (default false), outbound wasi:http requests to https:// hosts use TLS, and NATS connections support TLS (and TLS-first) with CA and client certificates. Inbound HTTP ingress supports TLS (--tls-cert-path/--tls-key-path). Plain HTTP ingress remains available for deployments where a gateway or ingress controller terminates TLS in front of the host.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    All TLS in wasmCloud uses rustls 0.23 (with the aws-lc-rs provider), via rustls, tokio-rustls, hyper-rustls, reqwest's rustls-tls and oci-client's rustls-tls features (workspace Cargo.toml). rustls implements only TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 and has no support for SSL or TLS 1.0/1.1.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]
    Note that incorrect TLS certificate verification is a common mistake. For more information, see "The Most Dangerous Code in the World: Validating SSL Certificates in Non-Browser Software" by Martin Georgiev et al. and "Do you trust this application?" by Michael Catanzaro.

    TLS clients verify server certificates by default. Client configurations are built with rustls ClientConfig::builder().with_root_certificates(...) using the platform's native trust store, webpki roots, and any operator-supplied CA bundles (crates/wash-runtime/src/host/http_client.rs). The codebase contains no custom certificate verifier and no option to disable verification.


    Enough for a badge!

    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]

    Certificate verification happens during the rustls TLS handshake, before any application data is sent, so no request, header, credential or body is transmitted to a peer whose certificate fails verification.


  • Secure release


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Per security-insights.yml: repository.release.attestations predicate-uri includes slsa Comment says: "Release binaries, container images and WIT interface packages carry Sigstore-signed SLSA provenance. Verify with gh attestation verify --repo wasmCloud/wasmCloud.".


    Barely enough for a badge.

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

    Release tags are annotated tags created by the release workflow (.github/workflows/release-tag.yml) at the release PR's merge commit and are immutable once pushed, but the tag objects are not yet signed. The released artifacts are signed: the same workflow attests every binary and the container image manifest digest with GitHub artifact attestations (Sigstore Fulcio/Rekor, SLSA provenance), and each attestation records the source commit the tag points to. Users can verify an artifact with gh attestation verify and compare the attested commit with git rev-parse vX.Y.Z^{commit}.


  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    wasmCloud validates input from every untrusted source and rejects what is not allowed, using allowlists where the data has restrictions:

    • WebAssembly components (untrusted code): wasmtime validates every component's binary format and types before compiling it, and rejects invalid modules. A component is linked only against the imports its workload spec grants; any other import fails instantiation (crates/wash-runtime/src/engine/mod.rs).
    • Control-plane requests over NATS: workload start/update/stop messages are deserialized into typed protobuf/serde structures and validated before use (crates/wash-runtime/src/washlet/mod.rs); malformed or invalid requests are rejected with an error.
    • Kubernetes resources: the runtime-operator's CRDs carry OpenAPI schema validation (kubebuilder validation markers in runtime-operator/api/runtime/v1alpha1/), so the API server rejects invalid specs before the operator sees them.
    • Outbound network access: wasi:http requests are allowed only to hosts on the workload's allowedHosts allowlist (crates/wash-runtime/src/host/allowed_hosts.rs, egress_policy.rs), and socket connections are checked against the workload spec and the host's address policy, which denies loopback, link-local and metadata ranges by default (crates/wash-runtime/src/sockets/policy.rs).
    • Filesystem access: hostPath volumes must fall inside the operator's --allowed-host-path allowlist, and reserved host paths are refused (crates/wash/src/cli/host.rs, crates/wash-runtime/src/engine/volumes.rs).
    • Inbound HTTP: requests are parsed by hyper, which rejects malformed HTTP, and are routed only to workloads that declared a matching route; unmatched requests are rejected.
    • OCI artifacts: components pulled by digest are checked against that SHA-256 digest.

    The threat model (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/THREAT_MODEL.md) describes these trust boundaries in more detail.


    Enough for a badge!

    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).

    wasmCloud uses several hardening mechanisms so that defects are less likely to become vulnerabilities:

    • Memory-safe languages and denied undefined behavior: the host, CLI and plugins are Rust and the operator and gateway are Go. The Rust workspace denies unsafe_code for every crate ([workspace.lints.rust] in Cargo.toml, with warnings also denied); the few exceptions are individually annotated #[allow(unsafe_code)] sites for OS FFI and environment mutation, each with a SAFETY comment.
    • Lints that eliminate crash and misuse classes: the workspace denies clippy's unwrap_used, expect_used, panic, indexing_slicing, panicking_unwrap, transmute_ptr_to_ref, transmute_undefined_repr and serde_api_misuse ([workspace.lints.clippy] in Cargo.toml), so an unexpected input yields an error instead of a panic, an out-of-bounds index, or an unsound transmute.
    • Compiler and linker hardening: Rust release binaries are built with the toolchain's default mitigations for Linux targets (position-independent executables, full RELRO, non-executable stack and data, and stack probes against stack clashing), and Go binaries get the Go runtime's bounds checking and stack guards.
    • Sandboxing of untrusted code: guest WebAssembly runs in wasmtime with bounds-checked linear memory and guard pages, structured control flow (Wasm-level control-flow integrity), Spectre mitigations on memory and table accesses, and epoch-based interruption, so a defect in guest code cannot read or write host memory.
    • Resource limits: per-workload and host-wide limits on guest memory, connections and file descriptors (crates/wash-runtime/src/engine/guest_memory.rs, crates/wash-runtime/src/host/quota.rs) keep a defect from exhausting the host.
    • Continuous checks: CodeQL, zizmor, cargo audit and cargo deny run in CI.

    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    Threat model and trust boundaries: THREAT_MODEL.md (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/THREAT_MODEL.md) defines the scope, actors, security goals and known limitations, and names four trust boundaries: component to host, workload to workload, workload to plugin, and workload to network. Gemara capability and threat catalogs (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/tree/main/docs/security) link each of 17 threats to the host capability and code that exposes it. SELF_ASSESSMENT.md (https://github.com/wasmCloud/wasmCloud/blob/main/SELF_ASSESSMENT.md#security-functions-and-features) lists the security functions that enforce them.

    Secure design principles: least privilege (a component is linked only against the imports its workload grants, with no ambient filesystem, network or environment access); safe defaults (the address policy denies loopback, link-local and metadata ranges, insecure registries are off, and policy-relaxing flags are opt-in and listed in THREAT_MODEL.md); complete mediation (every outbound wasi:http request and socket operation is checked against allowedHosts and the address policy); economy of mechanism (one TLS stack, rustls, and one sandbox, wasmtime); open design (all mechanisms are open source and documented); separation of privilege (operator, host and workload hold different credentials and grants); least common mechanism (per-workload stores, loopback network and resource quotas).

    Common implementation weaknesses: memory-safety weaknesses (CWE-787, 125, 416) are countered by Rust and Go, with unsafe_code = 'deny' across the workspace and wasmtime bounds checks and guard pages for guest code; injection (CWE-78, 89) by having no shell-outs on request paths and typed APIs; path traversal (CWE-22) by the hostPath allowlist and reserved paths; SSRF (CWE-918) by allowedHosts and the address policy; missing authentication (CWE-306) by NATS credentials and TLS; uncontrolled resource consumption (CWE-400) by memory, connection and file-descriptor quotas and epoch interruption; unsafe deserialization (CWE-502) by typed serde and protobuf decoding. CodeQL, cargo audit and cargo deny run in CI.


 Analysis 2/2 ●

  • Static code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    clippy lints for several common vulnerabilities. It is the standard tool for detecting this type of vulnerabilities in the Rust ecosystem.


  • Dynamic code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    N/A. The software wasmCloud produces is written in memory-safe languages: Rust (host, CLI, plugins) and Go (operator, gateway); the repository contains no C or C++ in its shipped components. The Rust workspace denies unsafe_code by default ([workspace.lints.rust] in Cargo.toml). The small number of exceptions are individually annotated #[allow(unsafe_code)] sites, each with a SAFETY comment, for OS FFI (macOS process footprint and signal mask, Windows file streams, UDP socket options) and for environment-variable mutation, which Rust 2024 marks unsafe and which the host serializes behind a lock. The operator's Go code also has native fuzz tests (e.g. runtime-operator/api/runtime/v1alpha1/workload_fuzz_test.go) whose seed corpora run with the regular test suite. Untrusted guest code runs inside wasmtime, a Bytecode Alliance project that is continuously fuzzed with sanitizers through OSS-Fuzz.



You can use tools and AI systems to propose changes via a simple URL, such as https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/6363/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 Brooks Townsend and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Brooks Townsend.
Entry created on 2022-08-15 21:56:48 UTC, last updated on 2026-11-03 20:55:31 UTC. Last lost passing badge on 2023-11-02 18:23:16 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2023-11-02 18:38:53 UTC.