WhitePact

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 14112 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/14112/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14112)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14112"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14112/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.

    WhitePact is an open-source runtime authority, governance, and assurance layer for autonomous systems. It provides deterministic five-way authorization decisions (ALLOW, ALLOW_WITH_REDACTION, REQUIRE_APPROVAL, DENY, QUARANTINE), policy and risk enforcement, human approval workflows, tamper-evident evidence, MCP governance, trust controls, guardrails, and enterprise integration tooling.

    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]

    The contribution requirements are documented in CONTRIBUTING.md, including development setup, testing requirements, pull request guidelines, CI requirements, Ruff formatting/linting, mypy type checking, public-function typing requirements, and security-related engineering principles.https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


  • 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.

    WhitePact adopts the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) 1.1 for non-trivial contributions. Contributors are required to certify their right to contribute by adding a Signed-off-by trailer to each commit using git commit -s.

    The requirement and contributor instructions are documented in CONTRIBUTING.md, and pull-request commits are automatically checked by CI.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    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.

    WhitePact publicly documents its project governance model in GOVERNANCE.md. The project is explicitly founder-led and documents decision-making authority, code-change and merge decisions, architecture and roadmap decisions, release authority, contribution rules, security responsibilities, and current governance limitations.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/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.

    WhitePact has adopted and publicly maintains a Code of Conduct in the repository root. It defines expected and unacceptable behavior, project scope, enforcement responsibilities, confidential reporting instructions, and attribution to Contributor Covenant 2.1.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/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.

    WhitePact publicly documents the project's current roles and responsibilities in GOVERNANCE.md, including the founder/maintainer, security contact, incident commander, risk owner, merge/release authority, and responsibility for project decisions.

    The document also clearly identifies who currently holds each role rather than implying roles or committees that do not exist.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.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]

    WhitePact maintains an established project-continuity mechanism designed to allow the project to continue if the primary maintainer becomes unavailable.

    The continuity arrangement covers recovery and continuity for the source repository, domain/DNS, release publishing, project infrastructure, security reporting, and other critical project assets, with a documented objective of restoring the ability to manage issues, accept changes, and release software within seven days.

    No recovery credentials or secrets are stored in the public repository.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/compliance/PROJECT_CONTINUITY_PLAN.md


    Barely 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.

    WhitePact currently has a bus factor of 1 because its active development and project-maintenance responsibilities are still primarily held by one maintainer. Project continuity mechanisms have been established separately, but a second independent maintainer with equivalent technical project knowledge has not yet been fully established.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md


  • 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.

    WhitePact maintains a public roadmap covering more than the next twelve months. It documents current work, upcoming phases, longer-term phases, dependencies, exit criteria, deferred work, and features or initiatives the project explicitly will not build yet.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/ROADMAP.md


    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.

    WhitePact maintains a public architecture specification in SPEC.md describing the system's high-level design, runtime governance pipeline, core entities, identity and authority models, policy and risk evaluation, governance decisions, persistence, evidence, approvals, MCP integration, and implementation boundaries.

    The specification explicitly distinguishes implemented capabilities from target architecture.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/SPEC.md


    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.

    WhitePact publicly documents what users can and cannot expect from the project's security model. ENTERPRISE_SECURITY.md covers authentication, API-key handling, OIDC/SSO, tenant isolation, encryption responsibilities, TLS, audit integrity, security boundaries, vulnerability handling, deployment responsibilities, and known limitations.

    The documentation explicitly distinguishes actual security guarantees from unsupported assumptions and future controls.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/ENTERPRISE_SECURITY.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.

    WhitePact provides a public quick-start guide in README.md. It includes installation commands, a 30-second quickstart, instructions for starting the application, an immediately usable API example, expected output, and links to the dashboard and interactive API documentation.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact#30-second-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.

    WhitePact maintains project documentation alongside the current software implementation. Documentation is reviewed for version, feature-status, architecture, security, installation, compatibility, accessibility, internationalization, and OpenSSF-status consistency, and known stale statements discovered during the Silver review have been corrected.

    Documentation consistency is treated as a project defect when discrepancies are identified.


    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.

    WhitePact publicly identifies and links its recognized project achievements from the repository front page, including OpenSSF Best Practices, OpenSSF OSPS Baseline, and OpenSSF Scorecard status.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact


  • 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.

    WhitePact follows documented accessibility best practices for its user-facing dashboard. The project targets WCAG 2.1 AA and uses pa11y-ci/axe-based automated accessibility analysis across 30 public and dashboard pages as a hard CI gate.

    The accessibility remediation process identified and fixed real issues involving contrast, accessible names, form controls, and other markup, with both light and dark color schemes verified.

    Known limitations and the process for reporting accessibility defects are publicly documented.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/docs/ACCESSIBILITY.md


    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.

    WhitePact implements a real internationalization architecture for its user-facing dashboard. User-interface strings in the shared application shell use external locale catalogs, with English and Spanish currently supported.

    The implementation includes locale detection and selection, fallback behavior, interpolation, pluralization, locale-aware number/date formatting, catalog-integrity tests, and CI enforcement. Contributors can add additional locales through the documented process.

    Full translation of every page is not claimed; the architecture is designed to make additional localization straightforward.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/docs/INTERNATIONALIZATION.md


  • 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.

    N/A — WhitePact does not store passwords for authentication of external users.

    WhitePact uses federated identity authentication through external OpenID Connect / OAuth identity providers, including Google and Microsoft sign-in. User passwords are entered only with and verified by the respective identity provider; WhitePact neither receives nor stores those passwords.

    WhitePact also supports high-entropy API-key authentication, with API keys stored only as non-recoverable hashes rather than plaintext credentials.

    Therefore there is no local external-user password database to which password key-stretching requirements apply.


 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]

    WhitePact maintains one active supported release line and provides a documented upgrade and backward-compatibility path to newer versions. The project follows Semantic Versioning, with breaking changes reserved for major releases.

    Legacy package names, import paths, environment variables, CLI names, and MCP resource identifiers are retained through compatibility aliases and documented transition periods so existing installations can upgrade without abrupt breakage.

    Supported-version policy:
    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/SECURITY.md

    Migration/upgrade compatibility:
    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/MIGRATION_WHITEPACT_V2.md


 Reporting 3/3 ●

  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

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

    WhitePact uses the GitHub Issues tracker to track individual bugs, enhancement requests, and other actionable project issues.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/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]

    N/A — WhitePact has not resolved any externally reported vulnerabilities during the last 12 months.

    The project's security policy nevertheless explicitly commits to crediting vulnerability reporters in release notes unless the reporter requests anonymity.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/SECURITY.md


    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.

    WhitePact maintains a documented vulnerability-response process in SECURITY.md.

    Security vulnerabilities must be reported privately rather than through public GitHub issues. The policy defines the reporting channel, required report information, scope, responsible-disclosure expectations, acknowledgement within 48 hours, and a resolution timeline within 7 days.

    WhitePact also commits to communicating with reporters, crediting them unless anonymity is requested, and not pursuing legal action against good-faith security researchers.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/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.

    WhitePact publicly documents its coding standards in CONTRIBUTING.md.

    Python code uses Ruff for linting and formatting, with the configured rule set maintained in pyproject.toml. Public functions require type annotations and mypy is used for static type checking. Contributions are required to follow these standards and pass CI before merge.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    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).

    WhitePact automatically enforces its documented Python coding standards through GitHub Actions.

    Every relevant change is checked using Ruff linting, Ruff formatting verification, and mypy static type checking. A violation causes CI to fail and prevents the required checks from passing.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.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).

    N/A — WhitePact is primarily a Python project distributed as pure-Python wheel and source distributions using Hatchling. The project does not build native C/C++ binaries and therefore does not directly invoke native compilers or linkers requiring CC, CFLAGS, CXX, CXXFLAGS, or LDFLAGS propagation.


    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.

    N/A — WhitePact's project-owned distribution is pure Python and does not produce native compiled objects with removable debugging symbols. There is therefore no project build step such as install -s that strips requested native debugging information.


    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.

    WhitePact uses Hatchling as a single Python packaging build backend. The build does not recursively invoke independent subdirectory build systems with cross-dependencies; the project's Python packages are assembled by the single configured Hatchling build target.


    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.

    WhitePact uses Hatchling as its build backend. Hatchling enables reproducible builds by default and uses SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH for build timestamps, with a stable default timestamp when it is not provided.

    WhitePact does not disable Hatchling's reproducible-build behavior, so wheel and source-distribution generation uses the backend's reproducible build mechanism.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/pyproject.toml


  • 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.

    WhitePact uses the standard Python packaging ecosystem for installation and removal.

    End users install the published package using pip, for example:

    pip install "rai-governance-platform[dashboard]"

    and it can be removed using the standard:

    pip uninstall rai-governance-platform

    Installation instructions are publicly documented in README.md.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact#install


    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]

    WhitePact delegates installation-location handling to pip, the standard Python package installer, rather than implementing a custom installer. Standard pip installation controls such as virtual environments, --target, --prefix, --root, and --user are therefore honored without being overridden by WhitePact.


    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.

    WhitePact documents a standard development installation using a Python virtual environment and an editable pip installation:

    pip install -e ".[dev]"

    This installs WhitePact together with its development and testing dependencies, including pytest, pytest-cov, Ruff, mypy, and related development tooling.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


  • 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.

    WhitePact declares its external runtime, optional, and development dependencies in the machine-processable pyproject.toml package configuration.

    Dependencies are separated into the core dependency list and named optional groups for dashboard, PostgreSQL, Redis, telemetry, SSO, model providers, billing, testing, and other integrations.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/pyproject.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.

    WhitePact automatically checks dependencies for known vulnerabilities using pip-audit.

    Dependency auditing runs in normal CI and in a separate recurring security workflow that runs on pushes to main and weekly. Confirmed dependency vulnerabilities fail the applicable security check unless a specific finding has been explicitly investigated, documented, and determined not to be exploitable in WhitePact's usage.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/.github/workflows/security-scan.yml


    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.

    WhitePact uses standard Python package dependencies declared centrally in pyproject.toml rather than embedding private or difficult-to-identify copies of those dependencies.

    Dependency versions and compatibility constraints can therefore be identified and updated through the normal Python packaging workflow and validated by the automated test and security-audit pipelines.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/pyproject.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]

    WhitePact uses maintained libraries and APIs and periodically reviews dependency compatibility and security.

    Where a new major dependency version contains breaking API changes, compatibility constraints are explicitly documented rather than silently ignored. Such migrations are handled deliberately with tests and backward-compatibility planning instead of continuing unknowingly on obsolete interfaces.


  • 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.

    WhitePact runs its automated test suite through GitHub Actions on every push to main and develop and on pull requests targeting main.

    The CI job installs the project and development dependencies, runs linting and type checking, executes pytest with coverage, and reports success or failure through the GitHub Actions status checks.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml


    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]

    WhitePact's engineering policy requires functional changes and bug fixes to include automated tests, and pull requests that reduce coverage are required to add tests before merge.

    The project therefore targets regression-test coverage substantially above the Silver requirement that at least 50% of fixed bugs receive regression tests.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    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.

    WhitePact's FLOSS automated pytest/pytest-cov test suite exceeds the required 80% statement-coverage threshold.

    The verified coverage run contains 2,249 passing tests. Pure branch coverage is independently measured at 80.19% (1469/1832), while the overall statement-plus-branch coverage is approximately 89%; because branch coverage is below that combined percentage, statement coverage is necessarily above the combined percentage and therefore comfortably above the 80% Silver statement-coverage requirement.

    Coverage is generated automatically in CI using pytest-cov/coverage.py.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/compliance/OPENSSF_DYNAMIC_ANALYSIS.md


  • 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]

    WhitePact has a formal written engineering policy requiring automated tests for functional changes and major new functionality.

    CONTRIBUTING.md states that every functional change needs a test, and WhitePact-specific development sections additionally define the testing expectations for governance features, MCP tools, providers, migrations, and security-sensitive changes.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    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.

    WhitePact's documented instructions for proposed changes explicitly require tests.

    CONTRIBUTING.md states that tests are required for pull requests, functional changes must have tests, coverage must not regress, and CI must pass before a change is considered ready for merge.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


  • 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.

    WhitePact uses strict automated quality checks appropriate to its Python implementation.

    Ruff is configured with error, Pyflakes, import-order, pyupgrade, bugbear, and naming rules, while mypy performs static type checking. Both run as hard CI checks, so violations fail the build.

    Only a small documented set of Ruff rules is intentionally excluded where strict enforcement is not practical for the existing codebase.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/pyproject.toml
    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml


 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).

    WhitePact implements secure-design principles throughout the project.

    Security-sensitive design includes least-privilege RBAC, tenant isolation, parameterized database access, explicit validation of untrusted network destinations, strong cryptographic key-generation and minimum-strength policies, rate limiting, secure secret handling, fail-closed authorization behavior, and automated security analysis.

    The project's internal security review documents manual review of authentication, authorization, SQL construction, SSRF, dangerous-function usage, cryptography, and tenant isolation, including real vulnerabilities discovered and remediated with regression tests.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/compliance/INTERNAL_SECURITY_REVIEW.md


  • 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.

    WhitePact's default security mechanisms do not depend on cryptographic algorithms with known serious weaknesses.

    The project uses SHA-256/HMAC-SHA256 for hashing and message authentication, cryptographically secure random generators for secrets, modern Fernet-based field encryption, and RSA keys of at least 2048 bits for OIDC verification.

    OIDC JWT validation is restricted to modern RS256/RS384/RS512 and ES256/ES384/ES512 signature algorithms.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/src/responsibleai/auth/crypto_policy.py


    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]

    WhitePact supports cryptographic algorithm agility where protocols require algorithm negotiation.

    OIDC token validation supports multiple modern signature algorithms across two algorithm families: RSA (RS256, RS384, RS512) and elliptic-curve ECDSA (ES256, ES384, ES512).

    TLS is delegated to modern TLS implementations/reverse proxies capable of negotiating multiple approved TLS cipher suites rather than binding the application to one fixed transport cipher.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/src/responsibleai/auth/oidc.py


    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]

    WhitePact stores authentication credentials and private application cryptographic keys separately from application source code.

    Secrets are supplied through environment variables or external secret-management systems and can be replaced without recompiling or modifying application code.

    The field-encryption mechanism explicitly supports key rotation using an ordered multi-key configuration so data can be migrated to a new key without requiring application recompilation.

    No private credentials or encryption keys are stored in the public repository.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/compliance/KEY_MANAGEMENT.md


    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]

    WhitePact supports secure network communication through HTTPS/TLS for production deployments.

    TLS is terminated by the deployment's trusted reverse proxy, load balancer, ingress, or managed cloud edge. The documented production nginx configuration enables TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 with modern authenticated cipher suites.

    Plain HTTP is used for local/internal application transport and development, while public production endpoints are expected to be exposed through TLS.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/DEPLOYMENT.md


    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]

    WhitePact supports TLS 1.2 or later for production network communication.

    The documented production reverse-proxy configuration explicitly enables TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3. The WhitePact reference deployment has also been verified to negotiate TLS 1.3.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/DEPLOYMENT.md


    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.

    WhitePact performs TLS certificate verification by default for outbound HTTPS communication.

    OIDC discovery, JWKS retrieval, token exchange, and other HTTPS client operations use httpx's secure default TLS configuration. WhitePact does not disable certificate verification with verify=False in these security-sensitive paths.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/src/responsibleai/auth/oidc.py


    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]

    WhitePact relies on standard HTTPS/TLS client behavior in which the TLS handshake and server-certificate verification are completed before HTTP request headers or request bodies containing private authentication information are transmitted.

    OIDC token-exchange requests use httpx with certificate verification enabled by default; no insecure certificate-verification override is configured.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/src/responsibleai/auth/oidc.py


  • 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.

    WhitePact cryptographically attests its published wheel and source-distribution artifacts using GitHub Artifact Attestations backed by Sigstore and GitHub Actions OIDC.

    The release workflow creates build-provenance attestations for dist/* before publishing to PyPI and uses PyPI Trusted Publishing, so no long-lived private PyPI or signing key is stored on the public distribution service.

    Every GitHub Release includes verification instructions:

    gh attestation verify <artifact> --owner Guruprasath-Annadurai

    This verifies that the artifact was produced by WhitePact's trusted GitHub Actions workflow from the identified repository and commit.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/.github/workflows/publish.yml


    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]

    WhitePact maintains a public security assurance case that connects the project's security requirements to concrete architecture, implementation controls, tests, and automated security evidence.

    The assurance case includes an explicit threat model, clearly identified trust boundaries, an argument demonstrating application of secure-design principles, and an analysis showing how common implementation security weaknesses are countered through controls including authentication, RBAC, tenant isolation, input validation, SSRF protection, parameterized database access, cryptographic-strength policies, secure secret handling, runtime authority enforcement, CI security scanning, dependency auditing, and supply-chain provenance.

    Residual risks and known limitations are explicitly documented rather than represented as solved.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/SECURITY_ASSURANCE_CASE.md


  • 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.

    WhitePact validates untrusted input at its external boundaries.

    The REST API uses FastAPI/Pydantic models, typed fields, constrained values, email validation, query validation, and explicit field validators. Security-sensitive inputs receive additional validation rather than relying only on schema parsing.

    Examples include SSRF-resistant webhook/upstream URL validation, minimum webhook-secret strength, minimum OIDC RSA key size, authentication and role validation, tenant isolation, and parameterized database queries.

    Invalid or unsafe input is rejected before the protected operation is performed.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/compliance/INTERNAL_SECURITY_REVIEW.md


    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).

    WhitePact uses defense-in-depth hardening mechanisms to reduce the impact of software defects.

    The dashboard applies security response headers including Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, Referrer-Policy, Cache-Control, and Permissions-Policy.

    Additional hardening includes request rate limiting, RBAC, tenant isolation, SSRF defenses, strong secret generation, minimum cryptographic key-strength checks, secure error responses, automated SAST, dependency auditing, and security regression tests.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/src/responsibleai/dashboard/middleware.py


    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.

    WhitePact cryptographically signs important Git version tags and documents how users can verify those signatures.

    Important release tags are created as annotated cryptographically signed tags using an approved project release-signing identity. The release process verifies that a release tag is annotated, signed, valid, and issued by an approved signer before publication.

    Public verification information is provided so users can independently verify Git tag signatures. This complements, rather than replaces, WhitePact's existing GitHub/Sigstore build-provenance attestations for published release artifacts.

    https://github.com/Guruprasath-Annadurai/Whitepact/blob/main/RELEASING.md


 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.

    WhitePact uses Bandit, a FLOSS Python static-analysis security tool designed to identify common security weaknesses and insecure coding patterns in Python source code. Bandit scans the WhitePact application source recursively as part of the security workflow.


  • 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 — WhitePact's project implementation does not include C, C++, or another memory-unsafe implementation language requiring AddressSanitizer, Valgrind, or equivalent memory-safety dynamic analysis. Its primary runtime implementation uses memory-safe languages such as Python and TypeScript/JavaScript.



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 Guruprasath Annadurai and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Guruprasath Annadurai.
Entry created on 2026-08-17 09:21:34 UTC, last updated on 2026-08-19 10:45:59 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-08-17 11:38:17 UTC.