OpenVerifiableLLM

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 15952 is in_progress 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/15952/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/15952)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/15952"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/15952/badge"></a>


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

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

        

 Basics 13/13 ●

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    OpenVerifiableLLM provides open code and tools to train and verify small language models. It publishes data, checkpoints, and training records so users can recompute training segments and compare results bit for bit.

    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.

    Assessment updated on 2026-10-27 using maintainer declarations and public evidence at main commit 874f0e728a6002b0daac6cddb0b9efa839a89faa. The initial public review used commit 81136541c83393f05a2d48b09910b4af07470412. Maintainer declarations support developer knowledge, the credential scan, and private CodeQL alert status. A broader public-history review left vulnerability_report_response unconfirmed because PR #118 needs response classification and the complete private reporting history has not been checked. The static_analysis answer describes the current release process and states the historical v1.0.0 timing. Bug and enhancement response counts retain the review window 2026-08-26 through 2026-10-26.

  • Basic project website content


    Enough for a badge!

    The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good]
    This MUST be in language that potential users can understand (e.g., it uses minimal jargon).

    The README explains that users can check language-model training by recomputing published training segments and comparing checkpoints. It describes the problem, goals, current results, and limits. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM#readme


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The README provides download and setup instructions. It links to GitHub issues and CONTRIBUTING.md. The contribution guide explains how to report bugs and propose changes. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM#readme https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) [contribution]
    We presume that projects on GitHub use issues and pull requests unless otherwise noted. This information can be short, e.g., stating that the project uses pull requests, an issue tracker, or posts to a mailing list (which one?)

    CONTRIBUTING.md explains issue discussion, development branches, pull requests against main, tests, and maintainer review. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    CONTRIBUTING.md requires focused changes, test execution, success and failure tests for verification changes, preservation of reproducibility guarantees, dependency locks, and documentation updates. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


  • FLOSS license


    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license]
    FLOSS is software released in a way that meets the Open Source Definition or Free Software Definition. Examples of such licenses include the CC0, MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). For our purposes, this means that the license MUST be: The software MAY also be licensed other ways (e.g., "GPLv2 or proprietary" is acceptable).

    The project is released under GNU GPL version 3. The README declares the license, and the repository root contains the complete GPLv3 text. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM#readme https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/LICENSE


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). [floss_license_osi]
    The OSI uses a rigorous approval process to determine which licenses are OSS.

    The project's declared license is GNU GPL version 3, an OSI-approved license. The complete license text is in the repository root. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/LICENSE https://opensource.org/license/gpl-3.0


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. (URL required) [license_location]
    One convention is posting the license as a top-level file named LICENSE or COPYING, which MAY be followed by an extension such as ".txt" or ".md". An alternative convention is to have a directory named LICENSES containing license file(s); these files are typically named as their SPDX license identifier followed by an appropriate file extension, as described in the REUSE Specification. Note that this criterion is only a requirement on the source repository. You do NOT need to include the license file when generating something from the source code (such as an executable, package, or container). For example, when generating an R package for the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), follow standard CRAN practice: if the license is a standard license, use the standard short license specification (to avoid installing yet another copy of the text) and list the LICENSE file in an exclusion file such as .Rbuildignore. Similarly, when creating a Debian package, you may put a link in the copyright file to the license text in /usr/share/common-licenses, and exclude the license file from the created package (e.g., by deleting the file after calling dh_auto_install). We encourage including machine-readable license information in generated formats where practical.

    The repository root contains the complete, unmodified GNU General Public License version 3. The file matches the official GNU text byte for byte. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/LICENSE https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt


  • Documentation


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. [documentation_basics]
    This documentation must be in some media (such as text or video) that includes: how to install it, how to start it, how to use it (possibly with a tutorial using examples), and how to use it securely (e.g., what to do and what not to do) if that is an appropriate topic for the software. The security documentation need not be long. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    The README and guides document dependency installation, supported hardware, downloads, verification commands, and testing. The documentation index identifies active and legacy components. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/README.md https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/docs/README.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. [documentation_interface]
    The documentation of an external interface explains to an end-user or developer how to use it. This would include its application program interface (API) if the software has one. If it is a library, document the major classes/types and methods/functions that can be called. If it is a web application, define its URL interface (often its REST interface). If it is a command-line interface, document the parameters and options it supports. In many cases it's best if most of this documentation is automatically generated, so that this documentation stays synchronized with the software as it changes, but this isn't required. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. Documentation MAY be automatically generated (where practical this is often the best way to do so). Documentation of a REST interface may be generated using Swagger/OpenAPI. Code interface documentation MAY be generated using tools such as JSDoc (JavaScript), ESDoc (JavaScript), pydoc (Python), devtools (R), pkgdown (R), and Doxygen (many). Merely having comments in implementation code is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion; there needs to be an easy way to see the information without reading through all the source code. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    The command guide describes inputs, commands, and generated records. The segment guide documents selection variables and MATCH/MISMATCH outputs. The artifact-verifier guide documents inputs, options, generated files, and verification behavior. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/README.md https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/docs/guides/check_a_segment.md https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/docs/guides/ovllm_verify.md


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https]
    This requires that the project home page URL and the version control repository URL begin with "https:", not "http:". You can get free certificates from Let's Encrypt. Projects MAY implement this criterion using (for example) GitHub pages, GitLab pages, or SourceForge project pages. If you support HTTP, we urge you to redirect the HTTP traffic to HTTPS.

    The project website and source repository use HTTPS on GitHub. Published release files are available through HTTPS on Hugging Face. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM https://huggingface.co/datasets/AOSSIE/openverifiable-enwiki-20260901-20260918-r1-evidence/tree/main/release/simple-run


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have one or more mechanisms for discussion (including proposed changes and issues) that are searchable, allow messages and topics to be addressed by URL, enable new people to participate in some of the discussions, and do not require client-side installation of proprietary software. [discussion]
    Examples of acceptable mechanisms include archived mailing list(s), GitHub issue and pull request discussions, Bugzilla, Mantis, and Trac. Asynchronous discussion mechanisms (like IRC) are acceptable if they meet these criteria; make sure there is a URL-addressable archiving mechanism. Proprietary JavaScript, while discouraged, is permitted.

    The public GitHub issue tracker and pull requests provide searchable discussions with stable URLs. Contributors can participate through a web browser. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/pulls


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english]
    English is currently the lingua franca of computer technology; supporting English increases the number of different potential developers and reviewers worldwide. A project can meet this criterion even if its core developers' primary language is not English.

    The README, contribution guide, and user guides are in English. The issue tracker contains English bug reports and discussions. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM#readme https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]
    As a minimum, the project should attempt to respond to significant problem and vulnerability reports. A project that is actively pursuing a badge is probably maintained. All projects and people have limited resources, and typical projects must reject some proposed changes, so limited resources and proposal rejections do not by themselves indicate an unmaintained project.

    When a project knows that it will no longer be maintained, it should set this criterion to "Unmet" and use the appropriate mechanism(s) to indicate to others that it is not being maintained. For example, use “DEPRECATED” as the first heading of its README, add “DEPRECATED” near the beginning of its home page, add “DEPRECATED” to the beginning of its code repository project description, add a no-maintenance-intended badge in its README and/or home page, mark it as deprecated in any package repositories (e.g., npm deprecate), and/or use the code repository's marking system to archive it (e.g., GitHub's "archive" setting, GitLab’s "archived" marking, Gerrit's "readonly" status, or SourceForge’s "abandoned" project status). Additional discussion can be found here.

    The project has current commits, reviewed pull requests, and named maintainers. Recent merged PRs restored the full license, hardened archive extraction, and documented a private security contact. The reviewed main commit is 874f0e728a6002b0daac6cddb0b9efa839a89faa. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/commit/874f0e728a6002b0daac6cddb0b9efa839a89faa https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md


 Change Control 9/9 ●

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]
    The URL MAY be the same as the project URL. The project MAY use private (non-public) branches in specific cases while the change is not publicly released (e.g., for fixing a vulnerability before it is revealed to the public).

    The project's Git repository is publicly readable at a stable URL. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Git records source changes, authors, and commit dates. The public commit history is available on GitHub. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/commits/main/


    Enough for a badge!

    To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim]
    Projects MAY choose to omit specific interim versions from their public source repositories (e.g., ones that fix specific non-public security vulnerabilities, may never be publicly released, or include material that cannot be legally posted and are not in the final release).

    The public main branch and pull requests contain intermediate changes for review between releases. The repository is not limited to final release snapshots. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/commits/main/ https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/pulls


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]
    Git is not specifically required and projects can use centralized version control software (such as subversion) with justification.

    The project uses Git, a distributed version control system, hosted on GitHub. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM


  • Unique version numbering


    Enough for a badge!

    The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]
    This MAY be met in a variety of ways including a commit IDs (such as git commit id or mercurial changeset id) or a version number (including version numbers that use semantic versioning or date-based schemes like YYYYMMDD).

    The published release is identified as v1.0.0. Its Git tag identifies the source, and the release notes pin the downloadable evidence to a full Hugging Face revision. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/releases/tag/v1.0.0


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver]
    Projects should generally prefer whatever format is expected by their users, e.g., because it is the normal format used by their ecosystem. Many ecosystems prefer SemVer, and SemVer is generally preferred for application programmer interfaces (APIs) and software development kits (SDKs). CalVer tends to be used by projects that are large, have an unusually large number of independently-developed dependencies, have a constantly-changing scope, or are time-sensitive. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value, because including a micro level supports simultaneously-maintained branches whenever that becomes necessary. Other version numbering formats may be used as version numbers, including git commit IDs or mercurial changeset IDs, as long as they uniquely identify versions. However, some alternatives (such as git commit IDs) can cause problems as release identifiers, because users may not be able to easily determine if they are up-to-date. The version ID format may be unimportant for identifying software releases if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery).

    The project uses the major.minor.patch version format: v1.0.0 for the release and 1.0.0 in the Python package metadata. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/releases/tag/v1.0.0 https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/pyproject.toml


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The v1.0.0 Git tag identifies the published release in version control. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/tree/v1.0.0


  • Release notes


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". (URL required) [release_notes]
    The release notes MAY be implemented in a variety of ways. Many projects provide them in a file named "NEWS", "CHANGELOG", or "ChangeLog", optionally with extensions such as ".txt", ".md", or ".html". Historically the term "change log" meant a log of every change, but to meet these criteria what is needed is a human-readable summary. The release notes MAY instead be provided by version control system mechanisms such as the GitHub Releases workflow.

    The v1.0.0 release includes a human-readable summary of features, verifier changes, downloads, results, usage, and known limitations. It is not a raw version-control log. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/releases/tag/v1.0.0


    Enough for a badge!

    The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. [release_notes_vulns]
    This criterion helps users determine if a given update will fix a vulnerability that is publicly known, to help users make an informed decision about updating. If users typically cannot practically update the software themselves on their computers, but must instead depend on one or more intermediaries to perform the update (as is often the case for a kernel and low-level software that is intertwined with a kernel), the project may choose "not applicable" (N/A) instead, since this additional information will not be helpful to those users. Similarly, a project may choose N/A if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery). This criterion only applies to the project results, not its dependencies. Listing the vulnerabilities of all transitive dependencies of a project becomes unwieldy as dependencies increase and vary, and is unnecessary since tools that examine and track dependencies can do this in a more scalable way.

    Maintainer confirmation, 2026-10-27: no vulnerability fixed in v1.0.0 had a CVE, GHSA, or similar assigned vulnerability identifier when that release was created. The release notes describe the included verifier security fixes and reference PRs #204, #207, #210, and #218. Future release notes will identify each fixed vulnerability that has an assigned identifier. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/releases/tag/v1.0.0


 Reporting 7/8 ●

  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Users can submit bug reports through GitHub issues. CONTRIBUTING.md specifies the command, environment, expected result, and actual result to include. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#reporting-bugs


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project uses the public GitHub issue tracker to record and track individual bugs. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Reviewed public bug reports created from 2026-08-26 through 2026-10-26. At least 9 of 17 reports received direct maintainer acknowledgment (52.9%): the maintainer closed #192, #194, #196, #200, #205, #206, #209, and #212, and assigned #223. Automated welcome messages and reporter self-comments were excluded. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues/223 https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]
    The response MAY be 'no' or a discussion about its merits. The goal is simply that there be some response to some requests, which indicates that the project is still alive. For purposes of this criterion, projects need not count fake requests (e.g., from spammers or automated systems). If a project is no longer making enhancements, please select "unmet" and include the URL that makes this situation clear to users. If a project tends to be overwhelmed by the number of enhancement requests, please select "unmet" and explain.

    Reviewed public enhancement requests recorded as issues from 2026-08-26 through 2026-10-26. The one documentation enhancement in this window, #176, received a maintainer response through its linked implementation PR #191 on 2026-10-25. The response explained the project scope change and invited an updated contribution (1 of 1 requests). https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues/176 https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/pull/191#issuecomment-6397651721


    Enough for a badge!

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

    GitHub publicly archives issue reports, comments, and status changes. Open and closed reports remain searchable and have stable URLs. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues?q=is%3Aissue


  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_process]
    Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. Projects on GitLab SHOULD consider using its ability for privately reporting a vulnerability. Projects MAY identify a mailing address on https://PROJECTSITE/security, often in the form security@example.org. This vulnerability reporting process MAY be the same as its bug reporting process. Vulnerability reports MAY always be public, but many projects have a private vulnerability reporting mechanism.

    The README and MAINTAINERS.md link to AOSSIE's security policy. The policy describes vulnerability reporting, the information to include, and the response process. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/.github/blob/master/SECURITY.md https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md


    Enough for a badge!

    If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_private]
    Examples include a private defect report submitted on the web using HTTPS (TLS) or an email encrypted using OpenPGP. If vulnerability reports are always public (so there are never private vulnerability reports), choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    MAINTAINERS.md documents private vulnerability reporting by email to rajat.roy@aossie.org or by Discord direct message to the maintainer, reoarei. Reports should include the affected file or command, reproduction steps, and impact. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md#reporting-a-vulnerability


    Not enough for a badge.

    The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. [vulnerability_report_response]
    If there have been no vulnerabilities reported in the last 6 months, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    One vulnerability report in the last six months did not receive a human response within 14 days. PR #118 (opened 2026-09-21) described a signer-trust bypass. Its first human maintainer reply came on 2026-10-25, 34 days later. Before that it had only automated responses. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/pull/118

    Every vulnerability report since then received a maintainer response within 14 days. The longest wait was 3 days 7 hours:

    • #200 (19 Oct): replied after 9 h
    • #205 (22 Oct): replied after 3 d 7 h
    • #206 (22 Oct): replied after 3 d 3 h
    • #209 (22 Oct): replied after 3 d 1 h
    • #222 (25 Oct): replied after 22 h
    • #238 (26 Oct): replied after 9 h

    MAINTAINERS.md now documents a private reporting route and commits to replying within 14 days. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md#reporting-a-vulnerability

    This criterion will be re-evaluated once #118 leaves the six-month window, on 2027-03-21.


 Quality 13/13 ●

 Security 16/16 ●

  • Secure development knowledge


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have at least one primary developer who knows how to design secure software. (See ‘details’ for the exact requirements.) [know_secure_design]
    This requires understanding the following design principles, including the 8 principles from Saltzer and Schroeder:
    • economy of mechanism (keep the design as simple and small as practical, e.g., by adopting sweeping simplifications)
    • fail-safe defaults (access decisions should deny by default, and projects' installation should be secure by default)
    • complete mediation (every access that might be limited must be checked for authority and be non-bypassable)
    • open design (security mechanisms should not depend on attacker ignorance of its design, but instead on more easily protected and changed information like keys and passwords)
    • separation of privilege (ideally, access to important objects should depend on more than one condition, so that defeating one protection system won't enable complete access. E.G., multi-factor authentication, such as requiring both a password and a hardware token, is stronger than single-factor authentication)
    • least privilege (processes should operate with the least privilege necessary)
    • least common mechanism (the design should minimize the mechanisms common to more than one user and depended on by all users, e.g., directories for temporary files)
    • psychological acceptability (the human interface must be designed for ease of use - designing for "least astonishment" can help)
    • limited attack surface (the attack surface - the set of the different points where an attacker can try to enter or extract data - should be limited)
    • input validation with allowlists (inputs should typically be checked to determine if they are valid before they are accepted; this validation should use allowlists (which only accept known-good values), not denylists (which attempt to list known-bad values)).
    A "primary developer" in a project is anyone who is familiar with the project's code base, is comfortable making changes to it, and is acknowledged as such by most other participants in the project. A primary developer would typically make a number of contributions over the past year (via code, documentation, or answering questions). Developers would typically be considered primary developers if they initiated the project (and have not left the project more than three years ago), have the option of receiving information on a private vulnerability reporting channel (if there is one), can accept commits on behalf of the project, or perform final releases of the project software. If there is only one developer, that individual is the primary developer. Many books and courses are available to help you understand how to develop more secure software and discuss design. For example, the Secure Software Development Fundamentals course is a free set of three courses that explain how to develop more secure software (it's free if you audit it; for an extra fee you can earn a certificate to prove you learned the material).

    Maintainer self-attestation, 2026-10-27: the primary maintainer understands secure-design principles and applies them in the verifier. Examples include fail-closed verification, least privilege through read-only CI tokens, complete input checks against a hash-linked record, and external timestamp trust anchors. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/docs/design/simple_run.md


    Enough for a badge!

    At least one of the project's primary developers MUST know of common kinds of errors that lead to vulnerabilities in this kind of software, as well as at least one method to counter or mitigate each of them. [know_common_errors]
    Examples (depending on the type of software) include SQL injection, OS injection, classic buffer overflow, cross-site scripting, missing authentication, and missing authorization. See the CWE/SANS top 25 or OWASP Top 10 for commonly used lists. Many books and courses are available to help you understand how to develop more secure software and discuss common implementation errors that lead to vulnerabilities. For example, the Secure Software Development Fundamentals course is a free set of three courses that explain how to develop more secure software (it's free if you audit it; for an extra fee you can earn a certificate to prove you learned the material).

    Maintainer self-attestation, 2026-10-27: the primary maintainer understands common errors relevant to this software, including unsafe deserialization, path traversal, dependency tampering, and false verification results. Relevant mitigations include weights-only loading or signature verification before unpickling, path containment, locked and pinned dependencies, and tampering tests that must fail. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/BestPracticesChecklist.md#secure-development-knowledge


  • Use basic good cryptographic practices

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

    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST use, by default, only cryptographic protocols and algorithms that are publicly published and reviewed by experts (if cryptographic protocols and algorithms are used). [crypto_published]
    These cryptographic criteria do not always apply because some software has no need to directly use cryptographic capabilities.

    The project uses published algorithms and protocols: SHA-256, Ed25519 signatures, RFC 3161 timestamps, and Sigstore. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/ovl.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/stamp.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/src/signing.py


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Cryptographic operations use Python hashlib, PyNaCl/libsodium, OpenSSL, and Sigstore. The timestamp code encodes requests but delegates cryptographic verification to OpenSSL. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/src/signing.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/stamp.py


    Enough for a badge!

    All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. [crypto_floss]
    See the Open Standards Requirement for Software by the Open Source Initiative.

    Cryptographic functionality uses FLOSS implementations: Python hashlib, PyNaCl/libsodium, OpenSSL, and Sigstore. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/pyproject.toml https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/stamp.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/release-models.yml


    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST use default keylengths that at least meet the NIST minimum requirements through the year 2030 (as stated in 2012). It MUST be possible to configure the software so that smaller keylengths are completely disabled. [crypto_keylength]
    These minimum bitlengths are: symmetric key 112, factoring modulus 2048, discrete logarithm key 224, discrete logarithmic group 2048, elliptic curve 224, and hash 224 (password hashing is not covered by this bitlength, more information on password hashing can be found in the crypto_password_storage criterion). See https://www.keylength.com for a comparison of keylength recommendations from various organizations. The software MAY allow smaller keylengths in some configurations (ideally it would not, since this allows downgrade attacks, but shorter keylengths are sometimes necessary for interoperability).

    Project artifact commitments use SHA-256, and artifact signatures use Ed25519. These mechanisms have no weaker configurable key-size option. Upstream MD5/SHA-1 metadata checks are separate compatibility checks, not the project's primary artifact commitments. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/src/signing.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/ovl.py


    Enough for a badge!

    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST NOT depend on broken cryptographic algorithms (e.g., MD4, MD5, single DES, RC4, Dual_EC_DRBG), or use cipher modes that are inappropriate to the context, unless they are necessary to implement an interoperable protocol (where the protocol implemented is the most recent version of that standard broadly supported by the network ecosystem, that ecosystem requires the use of such an algorithm or mode, and that ecosystem does not offer any more secure alternative). The documentation MUST describe any relevant security risks and any known mitigations if these broken algorithms or modes are necessary for an interoperable protocol. [crypto_working]
    ECB mode is almost never appropriate because it reveals identical blocks within the ciphertext as demonstrated by the ECB penguin, and CTR mode is often inappropriate because it does not perform authentication and causes duplicates if the input state is repeated. In many cases it's best to choose a block cipher algorithm mode designed to combine secrecy and authentication, e.g., Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and EAX. Projects MAY allow users to enable broken mechanisms (e.g., during configuration) where necessary for compatibility, but then users know they're doing it.

    The project's primary integrity mechanisms use SHA-256 and Ed25519. MD5/SHA-1 are used for compatibility checks against upstream Wikimedia metadata and Git object identifiers, alongside project SHA-256 commitments. This limited use is documented in the checklist. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/BestPracticesChecklist.md#cryptography-mark-na-if-project-does-not-handle-cryptography https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/src/ovl_pipeline/preparation.py


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project's primary cryptographic integrity mechanisms use SHA-256 and Ed25519. MD5/SHA-1 remain in limited upstream-checksum and Git compatibility roles, rather than as the primary project artifact commitments. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/BestPracticesChecklist.md#cryptography-mark-na-if-project-does-not-handle-cryptography https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/src/ovl_pipeline/preparation.py


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project's artifact mechanisms use hashes, digital signatures, and timestamps. They do not implement a session-key agreement protocol. HTTPS and SSH transports are delegated to external libraries and services. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/src/signing.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/stamp.py


    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project causes the storing of passwords for authentication of external users, the passwords MUST be stored as iterated hashes with a per-user salt by using a key stretching (iterated) algorithm (e.g., Argon2id, Bcrypt, Scrypt, or PBKDF2). See also OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet. [crypto_password_storage]
    This criterion applies only when the software is enforcing authentication of users using passwords for external users (aka inbound authentication), such as server-side web applications. It does not apply in cases where the software stores passwords for authenticating into other systems (aka outbound authentication, e.g., the software implements a client for some other system), since at least parts of that software must have often access to the unhashed password.

    The software does not store passwords to authenticate external users. Credentials used to access external services are outbound credentials, which this criterion excludes. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/BestPracticesChecklist.md#cryptography-mark-na-if-project-does-not-handle-cryptography


    Enough for a badge!

    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST generate all cryptographic keys and nonces using a cryptographically secure random number generator, and MUST NOT do so using generators that are cryptographically insecure. [crypto_random]
    A cryptographically secure random number generator may be a hardware random number generator, or it may be a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG) using an algorithm such as Hash_DRBG, HMAC_DRBG, CTR_DRBG, Yarrow, or Fortuna. Examples of calls to secure random number generators include Java's java.security.SecureRandom and JavaScript's window.crypto.getRandomValues. Examples of calls to insecure random number generators include Java's java.util.Random and JavaScript's Math.random.

    Ed25519 key generation uses PyNaCl SigningKey.generate(). Timestamp nonces use Python secrets. Seeded generators are used for reproducible training, not cryptographic keys or nonces. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/src/signing.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/stamp.py


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


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable. [delivery_mitm]
    An even stronger mechanism is releasing the software with digitally signed packages, since that mitigates attacks on the distribution system, but this only works if the users can be confident that the public keys for signatures are correct and if the users will actually check the signature.

    Source and release files are distributed through HTTPS on GitHub and Hugging Face. The current independent checker pins the evidence revision and verifies the release anchor's DigiCert timestamp. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/checker_pod.sh https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/fetch.sh


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Release files, manifests, and hashes are downloaded through HTTPS. The DigiCert timestamp endpoint uses HTTP, but its response is cryptographically verified with OpenSSL before the current independent checker reports PASS. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/stamp.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/simple/checker_pod.sh


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    Enough for a badge!

    There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]
    The vulnerability must be patched and released by the project itself (patches may be developed elsewhere). A vulnerability becomes publicly known (for this purpose) once it has a CVE with publicly released non-paywalled information (reported, for example, in the National Vulnerability Database) or when the project has been informed and the information has been released to the public (possibly by the project). A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known. Note: this means that users might be left vulnerable to all attackers worldwide for up to 60 days. This criterion is often much easier to meet than what Google recommends in Rebooting responsible disclosure, because Google recommends that the 60-day period start when the project is notified even if the report is not public. Also note that this badge criterion, like other criteria, applies to the individual project. Some projects are part of larger umbrella organizations or larger projects, possibly in multiple layers, and many projects feed their results to other organizations and projects as part of a potentially-complex supply chain. An individual project often cannot control the rest, but an individual project can work to release a vulnerability patch in a timely way. Therefore, we focus solely on the individual project's response time. Once a patch is available from the individual project, others can determine how to deal with the patch (e.g., they can update to the newer version or they can apply just the patch as a cherry-picked solution).

    Maintainer attestation, 2026-10-27: no medium-or-higher vulnerability has remained unpatched for more than 60 days after public disclosure. The Medium finding in the 2026-10-26 security review was fixed and deployed the same day. Earlier public verification defects were fixed in #204, #207, #210, and #218. The open reports #222 and #238 date from 2026-10-25 and 2026-10-26 and remain under active handling. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/tree/main/security-reviews https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues/222 https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues/238


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The maintainer reports no confirmed outstanding critical security vulnerability as of 2026-10-27. Security reports are acknowledged and addressed promptly. The signer-trust report #200 was acknowledged within one day and fixed through #204 within six days. The Medium finding in the 2026-10-26 security review was fixed and deployed the same day. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/issues/200 https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/pull/204 https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/tree/main/security-reviews


  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The public repositories MUST NOT leak a valid private credential (e.g., a working password or private key) that is intended to limit public access. [no_leaked_credentials]
    A project MAY leak "sample" credentials for testing and unimportant databases, as long as they are not intended to limit public access.

    Maintainer attestation, 2026-10-27: the credential scan covered 563 commits in the repository history. It checked private-key blocks and GitHub, Hugging Face, AWS, OpenAI, Slack, Google, and RunPod token formats and found no matches. The keys/ directory contains a public verification key. Private key files are excluded by .gitignore. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.gitignore https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/tree/main/keys


 Analysis 8/8 ●

  • Static code analysis


    Enough for a badge!

    At least one static code analysis tool (beyond compiler warnings and "safe" language modes) MUST be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that implements this criterion in the selected language. [static_analysis]
    A static code analysis tool examines the software code (as source code, intermediate code, or executable) without executing it with specific inputs. For purposes of this criterion, compiler warnings and "safe" language modes do not count as static code analysis tools (these typically avoid deep analysis because speed is vital). Some static analysis tools focus on detecting generic defects, others focus on finding specific kinds of defects (such as vulnerabilities), and some do a combination. Examples of such static code analysis tools include cppcheck (C, C++), clang static analyzer (C, C++), SpotBugs (Java), FindBugs (Java) (including FindSecurityBugs), PMD (Java), Brakeman (Ruby on Rails), lintr (R), goodpractice (R), Coverity Quality Analyzer, SonarQube, Codacy, and HP Enterprise Fortify Static Code Analyzer. Larger lists of tools can be found in places such as the Wikipedia list of tools for static code analysis, OWASP information on static code analysis, NIST list of source code security analyzers, and Wheeler's list of static analysis tools. If there are no FLOSS static analysis tools available for the implementation language(s) used, you may select 'N/A'.

    As of 2026-10-27, CodeQL uses security-extended Python queries on pushes to main, pull requests targeting main, and a daily schedule. CI also runs Ruff on active code. The maintainer's current release process requires analysis before each proposed major production release. Both checks passed on main commit 874f0e728a6002b0daac6cddb0b9efa839a89faa. These automated checks were added on 2026-10-26 and were not present in the source tagged v1.0.0. That release commit was subsequently covered by a published security review. This answer describes the current release process. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/codeql.yml https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/tree/main/security-reviews


    Enough for a badge!

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

    CodeQL analyzes Python using its security-extended query suite. The analysis passed on main commit 874f0e728a6002b0daac6cddb0b9efa839a89faa. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/codeql.yml https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/actions/runs/40418247310


    Enough for a badge!

    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [static_analysis_fixed]
    A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known. Note that criterion vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days requires that all such vulnerabilities be fixed within 60 days of being made public.

    Confirmed static-analysis findings are triaged and addressed. The CodeQL tar-extraction finding was fixed in PR #244 with regression tests for a malicious symlink archive and an ordinary archive. The maintainer reports that alerts #33 and #35 were dismissed with documented reasons and that no CodeQL alerts remained open on 2026-10-27. Alert #33 was classified as a false positive. Alert #35 concerns a preserved evidence script that is not run as product code. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/pull/244 https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/tests/test_dataset_archive.py https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/security/code-scanning


    Enough for a badge!

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

    CodeQL is configured for pushes to main, pull requests targeting main, and a daily schedule. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/codeql.yml


  • Dynamic code analysis


    Barely enough for a badge.

    It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release. [dynamic_analysis]
    A dynamic analysis tool examines the software by executing it with specific inputs. For example, the project MAY use a fuzzing tool (e.g., American Fuzzy Lop) or a web application scanner (e.g., OWASP ZAP or w3af). In some cases the OSS-Fuzz project may be willing to apply fuzz testing to your project. For purposes of this criterion the dynamic analysis tool needs to vary the inputs in some way to look for various kinds of problems or be an automated test suite with at least 80% branch coverage. The Wikipedia page on dynamic analysis and the OWASP page on fuzzing identify some dynamic analysis tools. The analysis tool(s) MAY be focused on looking for security vulnerabilities, but this is not required.

    Current CI runs fixed regression and tampering cases. The inspected workflow does not establish a qualifying input-generation/fuzzing tool or at least 80% branch coverage. Its coverage command measures statements, without branch measurement. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The project-owned software is Python with shell scripts. The inspected repository contains no project-owned C/C++ or other memory-unsafe implementation. Native code in third-party dependencies is not project-produced source. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the project use a configuration for at least some dynamic analysis (such as testing or fuzzing) which enables many assertions. In many cases these assertions should not be enabled in production builds. [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]
    This criterion does not suggest enabling assertions during production; that is entirely up to the project and its users to decide. This criterion's focus is instead to improve fault detection during dynamic analysis before deployment. Enabling assertions in production use is completely different from enabling assertions during dynamic analysis (such as testing). In some cases enabling assertions in production use is extremely unwise (especially in high-integrity components). There are many arguments against enabling assertions in production, e.g., libraries should not crash callers, their presence may cause rejection by app stores, and/or activating an assertion in production may expose private data such as private keys. Beware that in many Linux distributions NDEBUG is not defined, so C/C++ assert() will by default be enabled for production in those environments. It may be important to use a different assertion mechanism or defining NDEBUG for production in those environments.

    CI runs pytest/unittest tests with assertions enabled and does not use Python optimization mode. The tests include assert, assertEqual, and assertRaises checks. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/tests/simple/test_ovl.py


    Enough for a badge!

    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [dynamic_analysis_fixed]
    If you are not running dynamic code analysis and thus have not found any vulnerabilities in this way, choose "not applicable" (N/A). A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known.

    The maintainer confirms that the project does not currently run a qualifying dynamic analysis tool. CI runs fixed regression and tampering tests. These tests are not claimed to satisfy the dynamic_analysis criterion. There are therefore no findings from a qualifying dynamic analysis tool to assess under this criterion. https://github.com/AOSSIE-Org/OpenVerifiableLLM/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml



You can use tools and AI systems to propose changes via a simple URL, such as https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/15952/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 Rajat Roy and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Rajat Roy.
Entry created on 2026-10-26 12:35:52 UTC, last updated on 2026-10-27 02:04:47 UTC.