libgit2

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

If this is your project, please show your badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 9609 is passing Here is how to embed it:

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

        

 Basics 13/13

  • Identification

    A cross-platform, linkable library implementation of Git that you can use in your application.

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


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

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

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

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

    What license(s) is the project released under?



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

    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]

    GPL-2.0-with-GCC-exception



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


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

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


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

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

    GitHub supports discussions, issues, and pull requests, and we use slack and IRC for discussions.



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

    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]

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



  • Public version-controlled source repository


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

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

    https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2 Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git can track the changes, who made them, and when they were made.



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

    We use GitHub pull requests: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/pulls



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

    We use GitHub: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2 Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git is distributed.


  • Unique version numbering


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

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


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


    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 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]

    Security releases (fixing CVEs) are issued as point releases for at least the last two minor versions: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/main/SECURITY.md#supported-versions

    CVEs are documented in the release notes and the changelog: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/main/docs/changelog.md

    For example: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/releases/tag/v1.7.2


  • Bug-reporting process


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

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

    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]

    We have acknowledged most outstanding reports, issues, and feature requests; we will acknowledge them moving forward.



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

    We have acknowledged most outstanding reports, issues, and feature requests; we will acknowledge them moving forward.



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


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

    Published in our GitHub repository: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/main/SECURITY.md



    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]

    Published in our GitHub repository: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/main/SECURITY.md



    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]

    All vulnerability reports are acknowledged within 3 days.


  • Working build system


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

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

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

    libgit2 is buildable using open source toolchains.


  • Automated test suite


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

    Our test suite is part of the project, and is under the same open source license as the project itself. It is documented in our README: https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/tree/main?tab=readme-ov-file#running-tests

    Our test runner is its own open source project. https://github.com/clar-test/clar



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

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

    Our test suite is exhaustive. We aim for (and test for) bug-for-bug compatibility with git itself. https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/tree/main/tests



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

    We maintain pull-request validation builds, post-merge validation builds and nightly builds for a more complete platform coverage. https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/actions/runs/11461711781


  • New functionality testing


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

    We expect contributors to produce useful unit tests. https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/main/docs/contributing.md#unit-tests



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

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

    The pull request template does not (yet) discuss test expectations.


  • Warning flags


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

    We expect a warning-free build out of the box on all platforms, and our CI compiles with -Werror. In addition, we use a number of validation tools including fuzzing.



    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]

    We compile warning-free on all platforms (with the exception of our dependencies).



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


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

    At least one primary developer is familiar with Secure Software Development Fundamentals, including the course;



    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]

    At least one primary developer is familiar with Secure Software Development Fundamentals, including the course;


  • 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.

    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]

    libgit2 itself only implements file hashing, using SHA1 and SHA256.



    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]

    libgit2 itself only implements file hashing, using SHA1 and SHA256. Communications for TLS and SSH are implemented by other libraries and applications.



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

    libgit2's TLS requirements can be satisfied using OpenSSL or mbedTLS; its SSH requirements can be satisfied using libssh2 or OpenSSH.



    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]

    libgit2 does not configure keylengths itself; callers can configure the TLS or SSH libraries as appropriate for their needs.



    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]

    libgit2 uses SHA1 for hashing and compatibility with git itself.



    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]

    libgit2 uses SHA1 for interoperability with git and git repositories.



    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]

    libgit2 does not implement any cryptography of its own.



    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]

    libgit2 does not directly store passwords for authentication.



    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]

    libgit2 does not directly produce cryptographic keys or nonces.


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


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

    libgit2 is delivered via GitHub Releases. https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/releases



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

    libgit2 does not provide downloads over http.


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    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]

    libgit2 has no unpatched vulnerabilities at present; libgit2 patches vulnerabilities rapidly.



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

    libgit2 has no unpatched vulnerabilities at present; libgit2 patches vulnerabilities rapidly.


  • Other security issues


    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]

    libgit2 does not maintain private credentials.


  • Static code analysis


    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]

    libgit2 uses valgrind, clang sanitizers, CodeQL, coverity



    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]

    libgit2 uses valgrind, clang sanitizers, CodeQL, coverity



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

    We pass our valgrind, sanitizer and CodeQL runs cleanly. (Coverity contains significant false positives and are reviewed regularly but not necessarily "fixed".)



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

    valgrind and sanitizers run on every pull request; CodeQL and Coverity run nightly.


  • Dynamic code analysis


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

    libgit2 uses LLVM Fuzzing for key parts of user input https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/tree/main/fuzzers; these are run on every pull request OSS-Fuzz also supports the libgit2 project: https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/libgit2



    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]

    libgit2 uses LLVM Fuzzing for key parts of user input https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/tree/main/fuzzers; these are run on every pull request OSS-Fuzz also supports the libgit2 project: https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/libgit2 In addition, we have several "debug mode" features like strict allocators to help catch accidental misuse.



    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]

    Our CI builds run with assertions on all platforms.



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

    We currently pass all our fuzzing and DAST tests.



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 Edward Thomson and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Edward Thomson.
Entry created on 2024-10-23 08:39:42 UTC, last updated on 2024-11-24 17:34:36 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2024-11-24 17:34:36 UTC.

Back