Authelia

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.

If this is your project, please show your badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 7128 is passing Here is how to embed it:

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

        

 Basics 13/13 ●

  • Identification

    The Single Sign-On Multi-Factor portal for web apps

    What programming language(s) are used to implement the project?

  • Basic project website content


    Enough for a badge!

    The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good]

    There are succinct descriptions in the repository README within the first few lines, in the metadata values at the top of the GitHub repository, and on https://www.authelia.com


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The contact page of the website https://www.authelia.com/information/contact/ has information on how to make contact for these purposes, information on how to contribute is available in multiple locations such as https://www.authelia.com/contributing/prologue/introduction/ and https://github.com/authelia/authelia/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md, as well as the GitHub repository having both Issues and Discussions enabled.


    Enough for a badge!

    The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) [contribution]

    Non-trivial contribution file in repository: https://github.com/authelia/authelia/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    A link in the above CONTRIBUTING.md points to https://www.authelia.com/contributing/development/introduction/ and https://www.authelia.com/contributing/guidelines/introduction/


  • FLOSS license

    What license(s) is the project released under?


    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license]

    The Apache-2.0 license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). [floss_license_osi]

    The Apache-2.0 license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. (URL required) [license_location]

    Non-trivial license location file in repository: https://github.com/authelia/authelia/blob/master/LICENSE.


  • Documentation


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. [documentation_basics]

    There is extensive documentation available in the docs directory which is a live representation of the website.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. [documentation_interface]

    The API has a self contained OpenAPI 3.0 web interface (via SwaggerUI) relevant to the specific version and configuration of the product.


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https]

    Given only https: URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have one or more mechanisms for discussion (including proposed changes and issues) that are searchable, allow messages and topics to be addressed by URL, enable new people to participate in some of the discussions, and do not require client-side installation of proprietary software. [discussion]

    GitHub supports discussions on issues and pull requests.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english]

    All of our documentation is in English avaialble via https://www.authelia.com and we support users primarily in English.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]

    The project is maintained by a small team regularly including responses to issues and PR's.



(Advanced) What other users have additional rights to edit this badge entry? Currently: []



A majority of the requirements in both the passing and silver rating (there are a few outstanding items for silver) were already implemented prior to looking at and obtaining the OpenSSF best practices certification. Some small adjustments were required. In addition roughly half of the gold requirements were met.

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]

    Repository on GitHub, which provides public git repositories with URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [repo_track]

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git can track the changes, who made them, and when they were made.


    Enough for a badge!

    To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim]

    All branches commits are published in our CI/CD pipeline (Buildkite), both internal PR's and public PR's (once confirmed by a maintainer) are published as docker images.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git is distributed.


  • Unique version numbering


    Enough for a badge!

    The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]

    All releases use the semver versioning scheme: https://github.com/authelia/authelia/releases


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver]

    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that projects identify each release within their version control system. For example, it is SUGGESTED that those using git identify each release using git tags. [version_tags]

    All versions are tagged using semver tags.


  • Release notes


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". (URL required) [release_notes]

    We produce release notes automatically using conventional commits and conventional release notes. https://github.com/authelia/authelia/releases/tag/v4.37.5

    In addition with more impactful releases we've started creating blog posts describing them: https://www.authelia.com/categories/release-notes/


    Enough for a badge!

    The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. [release_notes_vulns]

    Currently this is published under each GitHub release:

    https://github.com/authelia/authelia/releases/tag/v4.29.3 https://github.com/authelia/authelia/releases/tag/v4.28.0


  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Users can submit both bug reports and security reports via the GitHub Issues system: https://github.com/authelia/authelia/issues/new/choose


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The GitHub Issues system provides this functionality: https://github.com/authelia/authelia/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. [report_responses]

    All reports of bugs are evaluated and either fixed, in the process of being fixed, or closed in the event the behavior is intended. Users routinely receive a response indicative of this promptly. We can not find any single issue that has never been responded to.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]

    All feature requests are evaluated and either implemented, in the process of being implemented, or closed in the event the feature will not be added. Users routinely receive a response indicative of this promptly. We can not find any single issue that has never been responded to.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    All bug reports and feature requests are archived along with all of their edits in the GitHub Issues system https://github.com/authelia/authelia/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed


  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_process]

    The security policies and reporting methods are documented both in https://github.com/authelia/authelia/blob/master/SECURITY.md and https://www.authelia.com/policies/security/


    Enough for a badge!

    If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_private]

    The vulnerability report process covers all of this information documented both in https://github.com/authelia/authelia/blob/master/SECURITY.md and https://www.authelia.com/policies/security/


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. [vulnerability_report_response]

    We have responded to every vulnerability report within the life of Authelia within 2 or 3 days with the exception of one which was about 8 days.


  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project requires building for use, the project MUST provide a working build system that can automatically rebuild the software from source code. [build]

    All commits are automatically built and published to https://buildkite.com/authelia.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. [build_common_tools]

    We use standard go build tools, vite, and docker buildx for building practically everything. The only exception is we use gox for streamlining multi-arch building releases which effectively is sugar for the go build tools. Our environment is roughly documented here https://www.authelia.com/contributing/development/environment/ and here https://www.authelia.com/contributing/development/build-and-test/


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The build process is described here: https://www.authelia.com/contributing/development/build-and-test/


  • Automated test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use at least one automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS (this test suite may be maintained as a separate FLOSS project). The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite(s) (e.g., via a continuous integration (CI) script or via documentation in files such as BUILD.md, README.md, or CONTRIBUTING.md). [test]

    The test process is described here: https://www.authelia.com/contributing/development/build-and-test/

    All of the tests use the go stdlib tests accompanied by testify.


    Enough for a badge!

    A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. [test_invocation]

    The go test tool can be used with our tests https://www.authelia.com/contributing/development/build-and-test/


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Our coverage reports for both frontend and backend are located here: https://app.codecov.io/gh/authelia/authelia


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the project implement continuous integration (where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result). [test_continuous_integration]

    Our CI/CD pipeline is publicly visible at https://buildkite.com/authelia and performs both unit tests and integration tests with all of our external dependencies.


  • New functionality testing


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a general policy (formal or not) that as major new functionality is added to the software produced by the project, tests of that functionality should be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy]

    Where it's practical we aim to enforce a near 100% coverage on new code,


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have evidence that the test_policy for adding tests has been adhered to in the most recent major changes to the software produced by the project. [tests_are_added]

    Our CI/CD pipeline automatically detects uncovered lines and while it's not a step which blocks merging it helps us ensure the test policy is followed where practical


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. [tests_documented_added]

    Our policy for tests is documented at https://www.authelia.com/contributing/guidelines/introduction/#general-guidelines


  • Warning flags


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST enable one or more compiler warning flags, a "safe" language mode, or use a separate "linter" tool to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. [warnings]

    We implement a fairly strict golangci-lint policy as part of our git hooks and the CI/CD pipeline, failures by this linter BLOCK merging


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]

    We have most linter and code quality warnings as a step which blocks the merge process. These checks have to be manually bypassed using obvious linter annotations.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. [warnings_strict]

    We by default have warnings as a failure condition, and adjust the impractical ones


  • Secure development knowledge


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have at least one primary developer who knows how to design secure software. (See ‘details’ for the exact requirements.) [know_secure_design]

    Enough for a badge!

    At least one of the project's primary developers MUST know of common kinds of errors that lead to vulnerabilities in this kind of software, as well as at least one method to counter or mitigate each of them. [know_common_errors]

  • 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 software produced by the project MUST use, by default, only cryptographic protocols and algorithms that are publicly published and reviewed by experts (if cryptographic protocols and algorithms are used). [crypto_published]

    We use AES256-GCM for encryption. It's not restricted by the US export requirements.


    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project is an application or library, and its primary purpose is not to implement cryptography, then it SHOULD only call on software specifically designed to implement cryptographic functions; it SHOULD NOT re-implement its own. [crypto_call]

    We use AES256-GCM for encryption and we use stdlib implementations, not our own.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    AES256-GCM is well documented and has implementations in most languages.


    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST use default keylengths that at least meet the NIST minimum requirements through the year 2030 (as stated in 2012). It MUST be possible to configure the software so that smaller keylengths are completely disabled. [crypto_keylength]

    The administrator determines the effective key length however we forcibly use the fixed key length of AES256.


    Enough for a badge!

    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST NOT depend on broken cryptographic algorithms (e.g., MD4, MD5, single DES, RC4, Dual_EC_DRBG), or use cipher modes that are inappropriate to the context, unless they are necessary to implement an interoperable protocol (where the protocol implemented is the most recent version of that standard broadly supported by the network ecosystem, that ecosystem requires the use of such an algorithm or mode, and that ecosystem does not offer any more secure alternative). The documentation MUST describe any relevant security risks and any known mitigations if these broken algorithms or modes are necessary for an interoperable protocol. [crypto_working]

    We do not support any of these broken algorithms directly and all algorithms supported by go are typically supported for any non-datastore implementations.


    Enough for a badge!

    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD NOT depend on cryptographic algorithms or modes with known serious weaknesses (e.g., the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm or the CBC mode in SSH). [crypto_weaknesses]

    No security mechanisms rely on these algorithms.


    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD implement perfect forward secrecy for key agreement protocols so a session key derived from a set of long-term keys cannot be compromised if one of the long-term keys is compromised in the future. [crypto_pfs]

    We use the default algorithm preferences from go's standard tls implementation which covers this by default.


    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project causes the storing of passwords for authentication of external users, the passwords MUST be stored as iterated hashes with a per-user salt by using a key stretching (iterated) algorithm (e.g., Argon2id, Bcrypt, Scrypt, or PBKDF2). See also OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet. [crypto_password_storage]

    Authentication passwords use iterated and salted mechanisms. OpenID Connect 1.0 client secrets support the same, but is not currently forced (it will be in the near future).


    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST generate all cryptographic keys and nonces using a cryptographically secure random number generator, and MUST NOT do so using generators that are cryptographically insecure. [crypto_random]

    We only use the crypto/rand package in production for these purposes.


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


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable. [delivery_mitm]

    We only support https. https://www.authelia.com/integration/prologue/get-started/#prerequisites


    Enough for a badge!

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

    We only support https. https://www.authelia.com/integration/prologue/get-started/#prerequisites


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    Enough for a badge!

    There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]

    This has never been the case, longest release after a vulnerability discovery was about 20 days.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Every vulnerability has been fixed promptly and as soon as possible. Longest to our recollection was about 7 days (we've only had 2 legitimate vulnerabilities).


  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The public repositories MUST NOT leak a valid private credential (e.g., a working password or private key) that is intended to limit public access. [no_leaked_credentials]

    We have protections against this as does the provider of our CI/CD pipeline.


  • Static code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    At least one static code analysis tool (beyond compiler warnings and "safe" language modes) MUST be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that implements this criterion in the selected language. [static_analysis]

    We use golangci-lint.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that at least one of the static analysis tools used for the static_analysis criterion include rules or approaches to look for common vulnerabilities in the analyzed language or environment. [static_analysis_common_vulnerabilities]

    We use CodeQL.


    Enough for a badge!

    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [static_analysis_fixed]

    We fix all true positive vulnerabilities discovered via static analysis regardless of severity, and do so as soon as possible.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Every commit and PR is analyzed.


  • Dynamic code analysis


    Barely enough for a badge.

    It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release. [dynamic_analysis]

    This is on our list of items to implement via go test -fuzz. https://go.dev/doc/security/fuzz/


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that if the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]

    The project is written in Go which is considered memory safe.


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the project use a configuration for at least some dynamic analysis (such as testing or fuzzing) which enables many assertions. In many cases these assertions should not be enabled in production builds. [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]

    We run several tests using subtests to enable easy comprehensive static and some basic dynamic testing.


    Enough for a badge!

    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [dynamic_analysis_fixed]

    We don't currently use a dynamic testing tool, we're looking into it.



This data is available under the Creative Commons Attribution version 3.0 or later license (CC-BY-3.0+). All are free to share and adapt the data, but must give appropriate credit. Please credit James Elliott and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: James Elliott.
Entry created on 2023-03-15 03:55:22 UTC, last updated on 2024-02-16 22:51:58 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2023-03-15 08:12:14 UTC.

Back