privacyIDEA

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 632 is in_progress 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

    multi factor authentication system (2FA, OTP)

    What programming language(s) are used to implement the project?
  • Basic project website content


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

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

    La información sobre cómo contribuir DEBE explicar el proceso de contribución (por ejemplo, ¿se utilizan "pull requests" en el proyecto?) (URL required) [contribution]

    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]

    We explain e.g. how translations can be done. https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst

    When contributing via issues at github, we use the template, so that the issuer will provide all necessary information. https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea/blob/master/ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md


  • FLOSS license

    What license(s) is the project released under?



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

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



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



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

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


  • Documentation


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

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

    There are different interfaces. The Python Module interfaces, when developing modules for privacyIDEA and the REST API, when performing HTTP requests when e.g. implementing plugins for third party applications. http://privacyidea.readthedocs.io/en/latest/modules/index.html

    Python Modules: http://privacyidea.readthedocs.io/en/latest/modules/lib.html

    REST API: http://privacyidea.readthedocs.io/en/latest/modules/api.html http://privacyidea.readthedocs.io/en/latest/modules/api/validate.html


  • Other


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

    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.



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

    The issues at github are filed in English language. The google group for discussions also uses the English language. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/privacyidea



    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]


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



  • Repositorio público para el control de versiones de código fuente


    El proyecto DEBE tener un repositorio público para el control de versiones de código fuente que sea legible públicamente y tenga URL. [repo_public]

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



    El repositorio fuente del proyecto DEBE rastrear qué cambios se realizaron, quién realizó los cambios y cuándo se realizaron los cambios. [repo_track]

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



    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]

    We are tagging versions like 2.18dev0, 2.18dev1 to illustrate, a certain milestone on the way to the release. We are also using branches for features and fixes of already published versions. (Branch 2.16.1 while already working on 2.17)



    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.


  • Numeración única de versión


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

    A realease gets a tag in the git repository. This version is also published at the python package index and in a launchpad repository.



    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]


    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]

    We are using tags for development snapshots and for released versions.


  • Notas de lanzamiento


    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]

    Non-trivial release notes file in repository: https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea/blob/master/Changelog.



    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]

    Public know vulnerabilities or bugs have an issue number at github. The Changelog references the issue numbers and each release has a section with "Fixes". https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea/blob/master/Changelog


  • Bug-reporting process


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

    We use a google group as mailing list. If questions appear to be bugs, the users are asked to open an issue or we are openen an issue for this problem. https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea/issues/



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

    We are using the github issue tracker: https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea/issues/



    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]


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

    El proyecto DEBE tener un archivo públicamente disponible para informes y respuestas para búsquedas posteriores. (URL required) [report_archive]

    We are using github and a discourse installation (we used to use a google group) https://community.privacyidea.org


  • Proceso de informe de vulnerabilidad


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


    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 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]

  • Working build system


    Si el software generado por el proyecto requiere ser construido para su uso, el proyecto DEBE proporcionar un sistema de compilación que pueda satisfactoriamente reconstruir automáticamente el software a partir del código fuente. [build]

    Se SUGIERE que se utilicen herramientas comunes para construir el software. [build_common_tools]

    El proyecto DEBERÍA ser construible usando solo herramientas FLOSS. [build_floss_tools]

  • Automated test suite


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


    Un conjunto de pruebas DEBERÍA ser invocable de forma estándar para ese lenguaje. [test_invocation]


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


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

  • New functionality testing


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


    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]


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

  • Banderas de advertencia


    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]


    El proyecto DEBE abordar las advertencias. [warnings_fixed]


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

  • Conocimiento de desarrollo seguro


    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]


    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 buenas prácticas criptográficas

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

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

    privacyIDEA provides standardized two factor authentication. Several OTP protocols are defined in RFC like OATH HOTP/TOTP/OCRA. Database encryption is performed using AES with IV. There are different standard hashing and key derivation functions in place. http://privacyidea.readthedocs.io/en/latest/faq/crypto-considerations.html



    Si el software producido por el proyecto es una aplicación o una librería, y su propósito principal no es implementar criptografía, entonces DEBE SOLAMENTE invocar un software específicamente diseñado para implementar funciones criptográficas; NO DEBERÍA volver a implementar el suyo. [crypto_call]

    We are using default crypto primitives implemented by various python modules.



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

    The complete server backend (privacyIDEA) is licenced under AGPLv3.



    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 SSL certificate is generated with 2048 bit keylength. AES 256 is used. SHA256 and SHA512. http://privacyidea.readthedocs.io/en/latest/faq/crypto-considerations.html



    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]

    The project does not depend on this. However MD5 is used for a special tokentype - the motp token. It uses md5 to calculate the hash from input data. 1. But the user is free to use this token type or not. 2. The md5 result is in fact truncated, so that the probability of guessing the next OTP value is rather low, since there is not the complete hash for calculating collisions.



    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]

    The HOTP and TOTP algorithm depend on SHA1. However, in fact they depend on HMAC-SHA-1 which is not broken. Read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4226#page-26 PrivacyIDEA uses sha2. http://privacyidea.readthedocs.io/en/latest/faq/crypto-considerations.html



    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]


    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]

    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]
  • Entrega garantizada contra ataques de hombre en el medio (MITM)


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

    The API and Webfrontend runs on Https when the default packages are created. https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea/blob/master/deploy/debian-ubuntu/privacyidea-apache2.postinst#L50



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

  • Vulnerabilidades públicamente conocidas corregidas


    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]


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

  • Otros problemas de seguridad


    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]

  • Análisis estático de código


    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]


    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]


    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]


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

  • Dynamic code analysis


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


    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]


    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]


    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]


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 Cornelius Kölbel and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Cornelius Kölbel.
Entry created on 2017-01-25 08:32:21 UTC, last updated on 2017-11-18 14:38:18 UTC.

Back