timetracker

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

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

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 11719 is baseline-2 Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11719/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11719)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11719"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11719/baseline"></a>


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

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

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    Simple time tracking front end with optional Jira synchronization, AD/LDAP integration and XLSX export.

    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.

 Controls 15/21 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Every workflow declares an explicit minimal permissions block: ci.yml, codeql.yml, security.yml, scorecard.yml and auto-merge-deps.yml use permissions: {} or contents: read, and elevated scopes are granted only where the activity requires them (packages: write and id-token: write for image publishing, contents: write and id-token: write for release provenance). See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/tree/main/.github/workflows


    Enough for a badge!

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

    No workflow interpolates collaborator-supplied values into shell commands; workflow_dispatch triggers declare no free-text inputs, and all run steps use fixed strings or environment variables. OpenSSF Scorecard's Dangerous-Workflow check scores 10/10. See https://securityscorecards.dev/viewer/?uri=github.com/netresearch/timetracker


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Releases carry no separate downloadable assets; the released artifact is the container image, which is tagged from the release tag via docker/metadata-action semver patterns (for example 6.3.4, 6.3, 6) and is additionally addressable by immutable digest on ghcr.io. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/.github/workflows/docker-publish.yml


    Enough for a badge!

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

    docs/secrets-management.md defines the policy across all three dimensions. Storage: a table of secret kinds and their stores (GitHub Actions secrets, GITHUB_TOKEN, keyless Sigstore, Vault, .env.local). Access: fork pull requests receive no secrets, and every secret has a named owner. Rotation: a trigger table including rotation within five working days when someone with access leaves, and at least annually for every long-lived credential. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/docs/secrets-management.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    SECURITY.md carries a 'Verifying a release' section with runnable commands: sha256sum -c against the published checksum, 'gh attestation verify' for the source archive, 'cosign verify' for the image and 'cosign verify-attestation --type cyclonedx' for its SBOM. The certificate-identity patterns are anchored to the specific signing workflows, and the section warns explicitly against loosening them to the organisation prefix, which would accept a certificate from any workflow in the org. It also notes that the commands signal failure by exit status rather than output. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/SECURITY.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The same section identifies the expected signer and how it changes. Releases up to v6.4.0 were signed by this repository's own workflow and verify with '--repo' alone; from the first release after v6.4.0 the attestation is issued by a reusable workflow in netresearch/.github, so verification requires '--signer-workflow netresearch/.github/.github/workflows/attest-release-files.yml'. Both forms are documented with the boundary stated, and AGENTS.md records the same for maintainers. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/SECURITY.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    SECURITY.md states the support policy explicitly: only the current minor line receives fixes, and a new minor release ends support for the previous one. The supported-versions table carries an End-of-life column, currently listing 6.3.x as supported until 6.4.0 is released. It also records that there are no long-term-support branches. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/SECURITY.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    SECURITY.md gives end-of-support statements per release line in a dedicated End-of-life column: 6.3.x ends when 6.4.0 is released, 6.0.x to 6.2.x were superseded by the following minor, and 5.x reached end of life on 2026-07-04 with the release of v6.0.0. Security fixes are explicitly not backported. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/SECURITY.md


    Not enough for a badge.

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

    The project documentation contains no policy for reviewing code collaborators before granting escalated permissions to sensitive resources. Access is managed through Netresearch GitHub organization teams, but the review step is not written down. Documenting it is planned.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Published container images carry a software bill of materials. The image build produces an in-image SBOM attestation via buildx and a merged CycloneDX SBOM (composer.lock plus a Syft scan of the pushed digest), attached to the image digest as a Cosign attestation and uploaded as a workflow artifact; a separate attest-sbom job records a GitHub build attestation. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/.github/workflows/docker-publish.yml


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project consists of a single source code repository; there are no subprojects to hold to the primary codebase's security requirements. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker


    Enough for a badge!

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

    docs/testing.md documents the test layers and how to run them, CONTRIBUTING.md states the testing requirements, the Makefile exposes the standard test targets, and .github/workflows/ci.yml defines when each suite runs (every pull request and push, with coverage on the nightly schedule). See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/docs/testing.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    CONTRIBUTING.md requires tests for new and changed functionality and states per-layer coverage expectations (controllers, services, repositories, entities), with the author and reviewer checklists calling out test coverage explicitly. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Not enough for a badge.

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

    The branch protection rule on 'main' does not require approving reviews - 'Require a pull request before merging' is disabled and no required_approving_review_count is configured - so a change can reach main without any non-author human approval. Note that CONTRIBUTING.md currently claims '2+ approvals from maintainers'; that claim does not match the enforced configuration and is being corrected. Verified in branch protection settings on 2026-09-18.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    docs/threat-model.md contains the attack-surface analysis: a trust-boundary diagram identifying the four boundaries that carry untrusted data (the browser, the MCP client, and the two outbound integrations whose responses the application parses), thirteen numbered threats with controls and residual risk, and named critical code paths including LoginFormAuthenticator, LdapClientService, ScopeGuard and the raw DBAL call sites in EntryRepository. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/docs/threat-model.md


    Not enough for a badge.

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

    The project does not publish VEX documents. Dependency findings that do not affect the application are currently handled ad hoc rather than recorded with non-exploitability statements.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    docs/vulnerability-management.md defines the thresholds and the remediation timelines: composer audit blocks on any advisory at any severity, bun audit and npm audit block at high and above, and fixes are due within 7 days for Critical, 30 days for High, the next minor release for Medium and the next scheduled dependency run for Low. Licence and selection criteria are in docs/dependency-policy.md. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/docs/vulnerability-management.md


    Not enough for a badge.

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

    The project has no documented policy requiring SCA violations to be resolved before a release. Releases are created manually and are not gated on dependency-audit results.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Every pull request and push is evaluated against the documented policy in docs/vulnerability-management.md, and violations block the merge: composer audit (any severity) runs in the CI lint job and bun audit --audit-level=high runs in the frontend job, both without continue-on-error, and both jobs are inputs to the 'CI Success' aggregate, which is a required status check on main. npm audit additionally runs via security.yml. See https://github.com/netresearch/timetracker/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml


    Not enough for a badge.

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

    No documented remediation-threshold policy for SAST findings exists in the project documentation. Thresholds are configured in GitHub code scanning protection rules (high or higher for security alerts), and PHPStan runs at level 10 with an empty baseline, but neither is written down as project policy.


    Not enough for a badge.

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

    Evaluation is now broad but only partly blocking. PHPStan at level 10 with an empty baseline, PHPat, Rector and PHP-CS-Fixer run in the CI lint job and do block, since 'CI Success' is a required status check. CodeQL covers javascript-typescript and the new semgrep.yml covers PHP with p/php, p/security-audit and p/secrets, uploading SARIF to code scanning — but semgrep is deliberately non-blocking ('the job does not fail the build') and is not part of the required checks, and code scanning findings are triaged rather than gated. With no documented severity threshold for SAST findings either, this is not yet met.



You can use tools and AI systems to propose changes via a simple URL, such as https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/11719/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 Sebastian Mendel and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Sebastian Mendel.
Entry created on 2026-01-09 06:05:12 UTC, last updated on 2026-09-20 17:21:08 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-02-25 23:03:38 UTC.