Basics 13/13 ●

Identification

What is the human-readable name of the project?
Note that other projects may use the same name.

What is a brief description of the project?

Find AI infrastructure vulnerabilities before attackers do. Security testing for MCP servers, AI agents, CLI AI platforms and LLM systems.

What is the URL for the project (as a whole)?
https://github.com/macawi-ai/Strigoi

What is the URL for the version control repository (it may be the same as the project URL)?
https://github.com/macawi-ai/Strigoi

What programming language(s) are used to implement the project?
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".

Implementation languages

What is the Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) name for the project (if it has one)?
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.
Basic project website content
Criterion [description_good]
Met

Unmet

?

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).
https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/
(e.g. core capabilities -->
Core Capabilities
🛡️ Security Assessment
```
Interactive CLI - Bash-like navigation with directional reconnaissance (north/south/east/west)
17+ Detection Patterns - API keys, credentials, PII, prompt injection, SSRF, path traversal
MCP Vulnerability Scanner - Specialized scanning for Model Context Protocol servers
Multi-Layer Analysis - 7-layer protocol inspection with Russian doll unpacking
```
📡 Real-Time Monitoring
```
NATS JetStream Integration - Distributed event streaming with persistent storage
A2MCP Bridge - Monitor AI CLI tools (Claude Code, Gemini, ChatGPT) via MCP protocol
Stream Tap - Live STDIO capture with security detection and smart redaction
MetaFrame Protocol - Standardized security telemetry format
```
🏗️ Platform Features
```
Multi-Architecture - AMD64, ARM64, ARMv7 (Raspberry Pi, NanoPi, Orange Pi)
Container-Native - Podman/Docker with rootless support
Web UI Dashboard - Real-time monitoring via http://localhost:8081/
Pre-compiled Binaries - Linux, macOS (Intel/Apple Silicon), Windows
```
Criterion [interact]
Met

Unmet

?

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 clear information on all three requirements:
1. Obtain: Multiple installation methods documented including pre-built binaries from GitHub Releases, wget commands for Linux/macOS/Windows, and build-from-source
  via install.sh. Direct links: https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/releases
2. Feedback: Bug reports and enhancement requests via GitHub Issues, linked in README: https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/issues
3. Contribute: Contributing section in README links to Development Methodology guide (docs/DEVELOPMENT_METHODOLOGY.md) covering code of conduct, development process, and pull request submission.
Criterion [contribution]
Met

Unmet

?

Habari juu ya jinsi ya kuchangia LAZIMA ieleze mchakato wa uchangiaji (kwa mfano, je! Maombi ya kuvuta yanatumika?) (URL required) ^{[contribution]}
Tunafikiria kuwa miradi kwenye GitHub hutumia maswala na kuvuta maombi isipokuwa palipoonyeshwa vingine. Habari hii inaweza kuwa fupi, kwa mfano, ikisema kuwa mradi hutumia maombi ya kuvuta, msako wa suala, au machapisho kwenye orodha ya barua (ipi?)

Projects on GitHub by default use issues and pull requests, as encouraged by documentation such as https://guides.github.com/activities/contributing-to-open-source/.

Criterion [contribution_requirements]
Met

Unmet

?

Habari juu ya jinsi ya kuchangia INAPASWA kujumuisha mahitaji ya michango inayokubalika (k.m., rejeleo la kiwango chochote kinachohitajika cha usimbaji). (URL required) ^{[contribution_requirements]}

https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
FLOSS license

What license(s) is the project released under?
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.

License
Criterion [floss_license]
Met

Unmet

?
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).
Open Source License

This software is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (AGPL-3.0).

Key AGPL-3.0 Requirements:
```
✅ Freedom to use — Use for any purpose including commercial
✅ Freedom to study — Access to source code guaranteed
✅ Freedom to modify — Make changes and improvements
✅ Freedom to distribute — Share copies and modifications
🔒 Copyleft requirement — Derivative works must be open source
🌐 Network copyleft — SaaS use requires offering source code
```
The AGPL-3.0-or-later license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
Criterion [floss_license_osi]
Met

Unmet

?

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.

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

Criterion [license_location]
Met

Unmet

?

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.

Non-trivial license location file in repository: https://github.com/macawi-ai/Strigoi/blob/main/LICENSE.
Documentation

Criterion [documentation_basics]
Met

Unmet

N/A

?

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).

Some documentation basics file contents found.
Criterion [documentation_interface]
Met

Unmet

N/A

?

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).
┌────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Interface │ Documentation │ URL │
├────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ CLI │ USER_GUIDE.md with full command reference │ https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/blob/main/USER_GUIDE.md │
├────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ CLI │ Built-in --help flags │ strigoi --help, strigoi <cmd> --help │
├────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ REST API │ FLEET_MANAGER_API_SPEC.md │ https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/blob/main/docs/FLEET_MANAGER_API_SPEC.md │
├────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Go Package │ pkg.go.dev (auto-generated) │ https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi │
└────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Justification for OpenSSF:

The project provides comprehensive interface documentation:
1. CLI Interface: USER_GUIDE.md documents all commands, subcommands, flags, and usage examples. Built-in --help provides real-time command reference.
2. REST API: docs/FLEET_MANAGER_API_SPEC.md documents all API endpoints with request/response examples in JSON format.
3. Go Package API: Automatically generated documentation available at pkg.go.dev/github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi
URLs:
- https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/blob/main/USER_GUIDE.md
- https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/blob/main/docs/FLEET_MANAGER_API_SPEC.md
Other

Criterion [sites_https]
Met

Unmet

?

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.

Given only https: URLs.

Criterion [discussion]
Met

Unmet

?

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.

GitHub supports discussions on issues and pull requests.

Criterion [english]
Met

Unmet

?

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.

Criterion [maintained]
Met

Unmet

?

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.

Regular maintenance evidenced on github

Other general comments about the project:

Security 16/16 ●

Secure development knowledge
Criterion [know_secure_design]
Met

Unmet

?
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).
Primary developer Jamie Saker is a senior cybersecurity executive with 30+ years technical hands-on experience with secure networking, infrastructure and code.
Criterion [know_common_errors]
Met

Unmet

?

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).

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.

Met

Unmet

N/A

Programu iliyotengenezwa na mradi LAZIMA itumie, kwa chaguo-msingi, tu itifaki za kriptografia na mifumbo ambazo zimechapishwa hadharani na kukaguliwa na wataalam (ikiwa itifaki za kriptografia na mafumbo imetumika). ^{[crypto_published]}

Vigezo hivi vya kriptografia mara mingi havitumiki kwa sababu programu zingine hazina haja ya kutumia moja kwa moja uwezo wa kriptografia.

All cryptographic implementations use publicly published, expert-reviewed algorithms:

Key Derivation: Argon2id (RFC 9106, winner of Password Hashing Competition 2015)

Parameters: 64MB memory, 4 threads, 32-byte key output

Encryption: AES-256-GCM (NIST FIPS 197 + SP 800-38D)

Authenticated encryption with 12-byte nonce
Go's standard library crypto/aes and crypto/cipher

Random Generation: Go crypto/rand (cryptographically secure)

Timing-Safe Comparison: crypto/subtle.ConstantTimeCompare

TLS: Standard Go crypto/tls (optional, configurable)

No custom or proprietary cryptographic algorithms. See implementations:

pkg/strigoictl/crypto/keystore.go - API key encryption
pkg/session/crypto.go - Session encryption

Met

Unmet

N/A

Ikiwa programu iliyotengenezwa na mradi ni programu au maktaba, na kusudi lake la msingi sio kutekeleza usimbuaji, basi INAPASWA tu kuita programu iliyoundwa kihususa kutekeleza kazi za kielelezo; HAIPASWI kutekeleza-upya shughuli hiyo. ^{[crypto_call]}

Software does not implement any cryptography of its own and relies on well supported public libraries for the functionality.

Met

Unmet

N/A

Utendaji wote katika programu iliyotengenezwa na mradi ambayo inategemea usimbuaji LAZIMA iweze kutekelezwa kwa kutumia FLOSS. ^{[crypto_floss]}

Tazama Mahitaji ya Viwango wazi ya Programu kupitia Open Source Initiative.

Met

Unmet

N/A

Mifumo ya usalama ndani ya programu inayozalishwa na mradi LAZIMA itumie kwa msingi keylengths ambazo angalau zinakidhi mahitaji ya chini ya NIST kufikia mwaka wa 2030 (kama ilivyoelezwa mnamo 2012). LAZIMA iwe rahisi kusanidi programu ili keylengths ndogo zimezimwa kabisa. ^{[crypto_keylength]}

Vipimo hivi vya urefu wa charaza ni: symmetric key 112, factoring modulus 2048, discrete logarithm key 224, discrete logarithmic group 2048, elliptic curve 224, na hash 224 (ufichuzi wa nywila haujashughulikiwa kwenye urefu wa charaza hii, maelezo zaidi ya ufichuzi wa nywila yanapatikana ndani ya kigezo cha crypto_password_storage). Ona https://www.keylength.com kwa mliganisho wa mapendekezo ya funguo-refu kutoka mashirika mbali mbali. Programu YAWEZA kubali funguo-refu ndogo katika usanidi (haifai kukubali, maana hii huwacha mashambulizi ya kushusha, lakini funguo-refu fupi wakati mwingine ina manufaa ya upatanifu).

All cryptographic key lengths exceed NIST 2030 minimums:

Algorithm	Our Implementation	NIST 2030 Minimum	Status
Symmetric (AES)	256-bit	112-bit	✅ 2.3x minimum
Key Derivation (Argon2id)	256-bit output	N/A (password hashing)	✅
GCM Nonce	96-bit	Standard	✅
Salt	128-256 bit	N/A	✅

Hardcoded, not configurable to weaker values:
// pkg/strigoictl/crypto/keystore.go
argon2KeyLen = 32 // AES-256 (256 bits) - hardcoded constant

// pkg/session/crypto.go
KeyLen: 32 // AES-256 - in DefaultCryptoConfig()

No downgrade path: Key lengths are defined as constants, not user-configurable. There is no option to use AES-128 or smaller keys. The only configurable parameters
are Argon2 work factors (time/memory/threads), which affect security strength, not key length.

See: pkg/strigoictl/crypto/keystore.go:40-41, pkg/session/crypto.go:24

Met

Unmet

N/A

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.

No broken algorithms used:

❌ MD4, MD5, DES, RC4, Dual_EC_DRBG - None used
❌ ECB mode - Not used
❌ Unauthenticated CTR mode - Not used

Only secure algorithms/modes:

✅ AES-256-GCM (authenticated encryption, as recommended)
✅ Argon2id (modern password hashing)
✅ crypto/rand (secure PRNG)

Cipher mode verification:
$ grep -E "NewGCM|NewCBC|NewECB|NewCTR" pkg/ cmd/ --include="*.go"

Only NewGCM found (4 occurrences in crypto.go and keystore.go)

Note on MD5 reference: One struct field (Checksums map[string]string // md5, sha256) exists in protocol/layers.go for optional integrity metadata from external
sources - this is not a security mechanism, just a data container. No MD5 hashing is performed by the project.

All encryption uses GCM mode which combines secrecy and authentication as recommended.

Met

Unmet

N/A

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.

No weak algorithms or modes used:

❌ SHA-1 - Not used anywhere
❌ CBC mode - Not used (only GCM)
❌ MD5 for security - Not used

Only strong algorithms:

✅ SHA-256 for hashing (HMAC-SHA256, integrity checks)
✅ AES-256-GCM for encryption
✅ Argon2id for password hashing

Verification:
$ grep -riE "sha1|SHA1|NewCBC" pkg/ cmd/ internal/ --include="*.go"

No results

$ grep -r "sha256" pkg/ --include="*.go" | wc -l

14 occurrences - all SHA-256

All cryptographic operations use modern, well-reviewed algorithms without known serious weaknesses.

Met

Unmet

N/A

Mifumo ya usalama ndani ya programu iliyotengenezwa na mradi INAPASWA kutekeleza kwa ukamilifu usiri wa umbele ya itifaki za makubaliano ya funguo ili funguo la kipindi kilicho tokana na kikao cha vifungo muda-mrefu haziwezi kuridhi mabaya ikiwa mojawapo ya vifunguo vya muda-mrefu imeridhi mabaya katika usoni. ^[crypto_pfs]

TLS Communications: The project uses Go's standard crypto/tls library with default configuration. Go 1.17+ (project requires Go 1.25+) defaults to:

TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 with ECDHE (Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral) cipher suites
All default cipher suites provide PFS via ephemeral key exchange
No custom CipherSuites configured that would disable PFS

Verification:
$ grep -r "CipherSuites" pkg/ cmd/ --include="*.go"

No custom cipher suite configuration found

Go's default TLS cipher suites (as of Go 1.25):

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 ✅ PFS
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 ✅ PFS
TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (TLS 1.3) ✅ PFS

Local encryption: Uses Argon2id key derivation (not a key exchange protocol, so PFS not applicable). Each encryption operation uses unique salt/nonce preventing key
reuse.

See: pkg/a2a/protocol.go, pkg/a2a/bridge.go

Met

Unmet

N/A

Ikiwa programu iliyotengenezwa na mradi imesababisha uhifadhi wa nywila kwa minajili ya uthibitishaji ya watumiaji wa kutoka nje, nywila LAZIMA zihifadhiwe kwa mficho uliorudiarudia na chumvi kwa kila-mtumiaji kwa kutumia kanuni ya upanuaji (rudiarudia) wa funguo (k.m., Argon2id, Bcrypt, Scrypt, or PBKDF2). Ona pia Kurasadogo ya Uhifadhi wa Nywila la OWASP). ^{[crypto_password_storage]}

Kigezo hili linatumika tu wakati programu linatekeleza uthibitishaji wa watumiaji kutumia nywila kwa watumiaji wa nje (ambayo pia ni uthibitishaji unaelekezwa ndani), kama vile programu za tovuti zinazobakia seva). Haitumiki katika visa ambavyo programu inahifadhi nywila ili kudhibitisha ndani ya mifumo mingine (ambayo pia ni ithibitishaji unaelekezwa nje, k.m., programu inatekeleza teja la mfumo lingineyo), maana angalau sehemu za programu lazima ziwe na njia ya kupata hiyo nywila isigalifichwa.

Strigoi does not store passwords for external user authentication. The project is a security assessment CLI tool, not a multi-user web application.

Authentication model:

Agent authentication: Uses PSK (pre-shared key) and HMAC-SHA256 signatures, not passwords
API key storage: Uses Argon2id encryption for outbound authentication (storing keys to connect TO external services like OpenAI, Gemini) - this is explicitly
excluded by the criterion
Session encryption: Passphrase-derived keys using Argon2id for local file encryption

No inbound user authentication:

No user registration/login system
No user database
No password hashing for user accounts

If password storage were added in the future: The existing Argon2id infrastructure (pkg/strigoictl/crypto/keystore.go, pkg/session/crypto.go) would be used, which
already implements iterated hashing with per-user salt as required by OWASP guidelines.

Met

Unmet

N/A

Mifumo ya usalama ndani ya programu iliyotengenezwa na mradi LAZIMA itoe funguo zote za kriptologia na nonces kwa kutumia kitengeneza cha nambari za bahati kuptia kriptologia salama, na ISIWEZE kufanya hivo kutumia vitengenezi zisizo salama kikriptologia. ^{[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.

All cryptographic key and nonce generation uses Go's crypto/rand (CSPRNG):

Security-critical code uses crypto/rand exclusively:
// pkg/strigoictl/crypto/keystore.go
import "crypto/rand"
rand.Read(salt) // Salt generation
rand.Read(nonce) // Nonce generation

// pkg/session/crypto.go
io.ReadFull(rand.Reader, salt)
io.ReadFull(rand.Reader, nonce)

// pkg/a2a/auth.go
ed25519.GenerateKey(rand.Reader) // Key pair generation
rand.Read(psk) // PSK generation

// pkg/security/auth.go
rand.Read(pskBytes) // Authentication key generation

math/rand usage is non-security only:

pkg/logging/txcontext.go - Transaction IDs for log tracing
cmd/traffic-simulator/ - Test traffic generation
cmd/test.go - Test files

Go's crypto/rand uses the operating system's CSPRNG (getrandom() on Linux, CryptGenRandom on Windows) which meets NIST SP 800-90A requirements.

Secured delivery against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks
Criterion [delivery_mitm]
Met

Unmet

?

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.
Primary delivery via HTTPS:
- GitHub Releases: https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/releases (TLS 1.3)
- Source clone: git clone https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi.git
- Container images: ghcr.io/macawi-ai/ (HTTPS registry)
Integrity verification provided:
- SHA256 checksums published with each release (checksums.txt)
- Git commit signatures available
- Container image digests via GHCR
The irony:
Strigoi is literally a security assessment platform that detects MITM attacks, credential exposure, and TLS misconfigurations in AI/LLM systems. The tool includes:
- TLS verification scanning (pkg/security/mcp_scanner.go)
- Credential leak detection (17+ patterns)
- Stream Tap for real-time STDIO security monitoring
We practice what we preach. Be curious if anyone reads this deep - if so, reach out to jamie.saker@macawi.ai and I'll even offer a free tool walkthru if interested :)
Criterion [delivery_unsigned]
Met

Unmet

?

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.
All checksums delivered via HTTPS:
- checksums.txt is published on GitHub Releases at https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/releases
- GitHub enforces TLS 1.2+ for all connections
- No HTTP endpoints exist for checksum retrieval
Verification instructions in README use HTTPS:
wget https://github.com/macawi-ai/strigoi/releases/download/v1.0.0/checksums.txt
sha256sum -c checksums.txt

Additional integrity mechanisms:
- Git tags are used for releases (cryptographically linked to commit history)
- Container images use content-addressable digests via GHCR
- GitHub's infrastructure provides additional transport security guarantees
No retrieval of cryptographic hashes over unencrypted HTTP.
Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed

Criterion [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]
Met

Unmet

?

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).

Criterion [vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]
Met

Unmet

?

Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. ^{[vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]}
Other security issues
Criterion [no_leaked_credentials]
Met

Unmet

?

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.
No valid private credentials in repository:

Scanned and verified clean:
- No AWS keys (AKIA...), GitHub tokens (ghp_), OpenAI keys (sk-...)
- No private keys (RSA, EC, SSH, OPENSSH)
- No hardcoded passwords for production systems
What exists (all safe):
- Detection patterns in modules/probe/ - regex patterns for finding credentials (the scanner's job)
- Key generation scripts - openssl rand -hex 16 generates new random keys at deploy time
- Local dev paths - .env contains only DATABASE_URL=./sqlite.db
Intentional test fixtures (permitted):
- examples/insecure-mcps/ contains intentionally vulnerable MCPs for testing
- Clearly documented as test targets, not production credentials
- Criterion explicitly allows "sample credentials for testing"
Preventive measures:
- .gitignore excludes: .env, .env.local, nkeys/*.txt
- Keystore encrypts API keys with Argon2id before storage
- gosec linter enabled to detect credential patterns

Analysis 8/8 ●

Static code analysis

Met

Unmet

N/A

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'.

Multiple static analysis tools applied before every release:

golangci-lint (meta-linter with 11+ analyzers):

staticcheck - advanced static analysis
gosec - security vulnerability detection
govet - Go vet checks
ineffassign, unused, typecheck, etc.
Run via make lint and in CI

gosec (dedicated security scanner):

Standalone run via make security
Separate CI step using securego/gosec@master action
Checks for: SQL injection, command injection, hardcoded credentials, weak crypto, etc.

Release process requires static analysis:
release: clean lint security test build # All must pass
ci: deps lint security test-coverage test-race build

CI enforcement:

GitHub Actions runs golangci-lint and gosec on every push/PR
Builds blocked if static analysis fails
Results logged for review

See: .github/workflows/strigoi-v1rc1-ci.yml, Makefile, .golangci.yml

Met

Unmet

N/A

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.

gosec is specifically designed to detect common vulnerabilities:

Vulnerability categories checked:

G101: Hardcoded credentials
G102: Bind to all interfaces
G103: Unsafe block usage
G104: Unhandled errors
G107: SSRF via variable URL
G108: Profiling endpoint exposure
G201-G203: SQL injection
G301-G307: File permission issues
G401-G404: Weak cryptography
G501-G505: Blocklisted imports
G601: Implicit memory aliasing

Mapped to common vulnerability standards:

OWASP Top 10 coverage
CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) mappings
SANS Top 25 alignment

Integration:

.github/workflows/strigoi-v1rc1-ci.yml

uses: securego/gosec@master
with:
args: '-no-fail -fmt json -out gosec-results.json ./...'

Additionally, golangci-lint includes staticcheck which detects correctness issues that could lead to vulnerabilities.

See: https://github.com/securego/gosec

Met

Unmet

N/A

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.

Current status: All confirmed exploitable medium+ vulnerabilities addressed.

Current gosec findings (62 medium+) are documented exclusions or false positives:

Rule	Count	Status
G115 (integer overflow)	41	Excluded - Go type conversions for array/slice lengths
G304 (file path taint)	9	Intentional - security scanner must read user-specified files
G204 (subprocess variable)	4	Intentional - scanner executes commands by design
G302/G301 (permissions)	7	Non-exploitable - internal config directories
G404 (weak random)	1	Excluded - used in non-security logging context

Evidence of timely fixes (git history):
8586a44 fix: resolve all gosec, unused, and code quality issues
5797609 fix: resolve all 10 golangci-lint issues for clean CI
f533dd1 fix: resolve all remaining linting issues for Go 1.25 compliance

Exclusions documented in .golangci.yml:
gosec:
excludes: [G104, G115, G402, G404] # With justification comments

No CVEs: Zero CVE-assigned vulnerabilities in project history.

Met

Unmet

N/A

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

Dynamic code analysis
Criterion [dynamic_analysis]
Met

Unmet

?

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.
Dynamic analysis tools applied before releases:
1. Go Race Detector (ThreadSanitizer-based):
- Instruments code at runtime to detect data races
- Run via go test -race in CI on every push/PR
- Applied to all packages: ./cmd/... ./pkg/... ./internal/...
CI workflow

run: go test -v -race -short -timeout=10m -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...
1. Automated Test Suite with Coverage:
- Unit and integration tests executed on every build
- Coverage tracked and reported via Codecov
- make test-coverage generates HTML coverage reports
- CI enforces minimum coverage threshold
1. Release gate (make ci):
  ci: deps lint security test-coverage test-race build
  All dynamic analysis must pass before builds succeed.
Evidence of effectiveness:
a25b207 Phase 3.1 Complete: ZERO Race Conditions Found! 🎉
a3ed353 Fix CrossSessionChecker deadlock with read-lock optimization
2ee9653 fix: Add comprehensive mutex protection to SessionManager

Race detector has caught and helped fix real concurrency bugs.
Criterion [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]
Met

Unmet

N/A

?

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.
Primary language: Go
- Garbage collected
- Bounds-checked array/slice access
- No pointer arithmetic
- No manual memory allocation/deallocation
- No buffer overflow vulnerabilities by design
Supporting languages (also memory-safe):
- Python (A2MCP agents)
- Shell scripts (deployment/build)
- YAML/JSON (configuration)
No C/C++ code in the project.

Go's memory safety is why we chose it - eliminates entire vulnerability classes (CWE-119, CWE-120, CWE-122, CWE-125, CWE-787) that plague C/C++ security tools.

Note: Go's race detector (used in CI) provides similar runtime instrumentation benefits for concurrency safety.
Criterion [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]
Met

Unmet

?

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.
Race detector enabled during dynamic analysis (testing), disabled in production:

Makefile - test mode with assertions

test-race:
go test -short -race ./cmd/strigoi ./pkg/... ./internal/...

CI runs with race detector

run: go test -v -race -short -timeout=10m ./...

Go's race detector acts as runtime assertions:
- Instruments memory access patterns at runtime
- Detects data races, deadlocks, and synchronization bugs
- Panics (asserts) on any detected race condition
- Only enabled via -race flag during testing
- Not included in production binaries
Test assertions used throughout:
- t.Fatal(err) - Stops test on invariant violation
- t.Error() - Records assertion failure
- t.Errorf() - Records formatted assertion failure
- Bounds checking panics in test scenarios
Production builds:
build:
go build -o strigoi ./cmd/strigoi # No -race flag

This follows the criterion's recommendation: assertions enabled during analysis, disabled in production.
Criterion [dynamic_analysis_fixed]
Met

Unmet

N/A

?

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.
Dynamic analysis IS performed, and all discovered issues have been fixed:

Race detector findings - all fixed:
a3ed353 Fix CrossSessionChecker deadlock with read-lock optimization
2ee9653 fix: Add comprehensive mutex protection to SessionManager
99183df fix(concurrency): Eliminate race conditions in coordinator and load tester
a25b207 Phase 3.1 Complete: ZERO Race Conditions Found! 🎉

Current status:
- Race detector runs on every CI build
- Zero race conditions currently detected
- All historically detected races were fixed within days of discovery
No CVE-assigned vulnerabilities discovered through dynamic analysis.

If N/A is selected, context:
While dynamic analysis (race detector, test suite) is actively used, no exploitable security vulnerabilities with CVSS 4.0+ have been discovered through these
methods. The race conditions found were correctness/reliability issues, not security vulnerabilities with CVSS scores. Therefore N/A is technically accurate - no
medium+ security vulnerabilities to fix.

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 Macawi AI and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Strigoi

Basics 13/13 ●

Identification

Basic project website content

FLOSS license

Documentation

Other

Change Control 9/9 ●

Public version-controlled source repository

Unique version numbering

Release notes

Reporting 8/8 ●

Bug-reporting process

Vulnerability report process

Quality 13/13 ●

Working build system

Automated test suite

New functionality testing

Warning flags

Security 16/16 ●

Secure development knowledge

Use basic good cryptographic practices

Only NewGCM found (4 occurrences in crypto.go and keystore.go)

No results

14 occurrences - all SHA-256

No custom cipher suite configuration found

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

Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed

Other security issues

Analysis 8/8 ●

Static code analysis

.github/workflows/strigoi-v1rc1-ci.yml

Dynamic code analysis

CI workflow

Makefile - test mode with assertions

CI runs with race detector