


If this is your project, please show your badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 1614 is silver Here is how to embed it:
[![CII Best Practices](https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/projects/1614/badge)](https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/projects/1614)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/projects/1614"><img src="https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/projects/1614/badge"></a>

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

 Basics 17/17

  • Identification

    Note that other projects may use the same name.


    POLICY provides a logically centralized environment for the creation and management of policies, including conditional rules. This provides the capability to create and validate policies/rules, identify overlaps, resolve conflicts, and derive additional policies as needed.

    Policies are used to control, influence, and help ensure compliance with goals. Policies can support infrastructure, products and services, operation automation, and security. Users, including network and service designers, operations engineers, and security experts, can easily create, change, and manage policy rules from the POLICY Manager in the ONAP Portal.

    A policy is defined to create a condition, requirement, constraint, decision, or a need that must be provided, evaluated, maintained, and/or enforced. The policy is validated and corrected for any conflicts, and then placed in the appropriate repository, and made available for use by other subsystems and components. Alternately, some policies are directly distributed to policy decision engines such as Drools or XACML. In this manner, the constraints, decisions and actions to be taken are distributed.

  • Prerrequisitos

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST achieve a passing level badge. [achieve_passing]

  • Basic project website content

    Enough for a badge!

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

    The Javascript code should meet the requirements except for the number of characters in a line of code specified by the styleguide https://google.github.io/styleguide/jsguide.html

    We avoid the restriction on the number of characters in one line of code to improve readability

  • Supervisión del proyecto

    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD have a legal mechanism where all developers of non-trivial amounts of project software assert that they are legally authorized to make these contributions. The most common and easily-implemented approach for doing this is by using a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO), where users add "signed-off-by" in their commits and the project links to the DCO website. However, this MAY be implemented as a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), or other legal mechanism. (URL required) [dco]
    The DCO is the recommended mechanism because it's easy to implement, tracked in the source code, and git directly supports a "signed-off" feature using "commit -s". To be most effective it is best if the project documentation explains what "signed-off" means for that project. A CLA is a legal agreement that defines the terms under which intellectual works have been licensed to an organization or project. A contributor assignment agreement (CAA) is a legal agreement that transfers rights in an intellectual work to another party; projects are not required to have CAAs, since having CAA increases the risk that potential contributors will not contribute, especially if the receiver is a for-profit organization. The Apache Software Foundation CLAs (the individual contributor license and the corporate CLA) are examples of CLAs, for projects which determine that the risks of these kinds of CLAs to the project are less than their benefits.

    ONAP requires both a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO), and a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Contribution+Agreements

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST clearly define and document its project governance model (the way it makes decisions, including key roles). (URL required) [governance]
    There needs to be some well-established documented way to make decisions and resolve disputes. In small projects, this may be as simple as "the project owner and lead makes all final decisions". There are various governance models, including benevolent dictator and formal meritocracy; for more details, see Governance models. Both centralized (e.g., single-maintainer) and decentralized (e.g., group maintainers) approaches have been successfully used in projects. The governance information does not need to document the possibility of creating a project fork, since that is always possible for FLOSS projects.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST adopt a code of conduct and post it in a standard location. (URL required) [code_of_conduct]
    Projects may be able to improve the civility of their community and to set expectations about acceptable conduct by adopting a code of conduct. This can help avoid problems before they occur and make the project a more welcoming place to encourage contributions. This should focus only on behavior within the community/workplace of the project. Example codes of conduct are the Linux kernel code of conduct, the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, the Debian Code of Conduct, the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, the Fedora Code of Conduct, the GNOME Code Of Conduct, the KDE Community Code of Conduct, the Python Community Code of Conduct, The Ruby Community Conduct Guideline, and The Rust Code of Conduct.

    ONAP adheres to the Linux Foundation Code of Conduct, found at https://lfprojects.org/policies/code-of-conduct/

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST clearly define and publicly document the key roles in the project and their responsibilities, including any tasks those roles must perform. It MUST be clear who has which role(s), though this might not be documented in the same way. (URL required) [roles_responsibilities]
    The documentation for governance and roles and responsibilities may be in one place.

    The key roles in the project and their responsibilities are described at


    Current members are listed at


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST be able to continue with minimal interruption if any one person is incapacitated or killed. In particular, the project MUST be able to create and close issues, accept proposed changes, and release versions of software, within a week of confirmation that an individual is incapacitated or killed. This MAY be done by ensuring someone else has any necessary keys, passwords, and legal rights to continue the project. Individuals who run a FLOSS project MAY do this by providing keys in a lockbox and a will providing any needed legal rights (e.g., for DNS names). (URL required) [access_continuity]

    For Policy we have 5 committers and multiple contirubots who are listed in https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories#ResourcesandRepositories-PolicyFramework All 5 committers have access and rights to maintain the code base, approve and review incoming changes and release a new version of the artifact. This will let the project continue with minimal to no interruption if one person is incapacitated. Also this project is controlled by the linux foundation so we can add more committers if needed

    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD have a "bus factor" of 2 or more. (URL required) [bus_factor]

    All 5 project committers actively contribute to the codebase. Details on the committers is stored in INFO.yaml files for each project. Example: https://gerrit.onap.org/r/gitweb?p=policy%2Fparent.git;a=shortlog;h=refs%2Fheads%2Fmaster

  • Documentation

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a documented roadmap that describes what the project intends to do and not do for at least the next year. (URL required) [documentation_roadmap]
    The project might not achieve the roadmap, and that's fine; the purpose of the roadmap is to help potential users and constributors understand the intended direction of the project. It need not be detailed.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST include documentation of the architecture (aka high-level design) of the software produced by the project. If the project does not produce software, select "not applicable" (N/A). (URL required) [documentation_architecture]
    A software architecture explains a program's fundamental structures, i.e., the program's major components, the relationships among them, and the key properties of these components and relationships.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST document what the user can and cannot expect in terms of security from the software produced by the project (its "security requirements"). (URL required) [documentation_security]
    These are the security requirements that the software is intended to meet.

    A security sub-committee is driving all components release requirements, best practices. Agreed recommendations become integral parts of an ONAP release and are assessed during milestones. URL : https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Security+coordination The release note clearly states what has been achieved, along with the release checklists and links to individual JIRA items that covers the above security requirements.

    The policy project provides per release vulnerability threat table: https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=36964976 - Casablanca Release https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54723253 - Dublin Release

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide a "quick start" guide for new users to help them quickly do something with the software. (URL required) [documentation_quick_start]
    The idea is to show users how to get started and make the software do anything at all. This is critically important for potential users to get started.

    Information on setting up ONAP can be found at https://onap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/onap-developer/settingup/index.html For Policy Project, each release has documentation on how to develop with the software: https://onap.readthedocs.io/en/dublin/submodules/policy/parent.git/docs/development/development.html

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST make an effort to keep the documentation consistent with the current version of the project results (including software produced by the project). Any known documentation defects making it inconsistent MUST be fixed. If the documentation is generally current, but erroneously includes some older information that is no longer true, just treat that as a defect, then track and fix as usual. [documentation_current]
    The documentation MAY include information about differences or changes between versions of the software and/or link to older versions of the documentation. The intent of this criterion is that an effort is made to keep the documentation consistent, not that the documentation must be perfect.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project repository front page and/or website MUST identify and hyperlink to any achievements, including this best practices badge, within 48 hours of public recognition that the achievement has been attained. (URL required) [documentation_achievements]
    An achievement is any set of external criteria that the project has specifically worked to meet, including some badges. This information does not need to be on the project website front page. A project using GitHub can put achievements on the repository front page by adding them to the README file.

    Our project page has the link embedded: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Policy+Framework+Project

  • Accessibility and internationalization

    Barely enough for a badge.

    The project (both project sites and project results) SHOULD follow accessibility best practices so that persons with disabilities can still participate in the project and use the project results where it is reasonable to do so. [accessibility_best_practices]
    For web applications, see the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) and its supporting document Understanding WCAG 2.0; see also W3C accessibility information. For GUI applications, consider using the environment-specific accessibility guidelines (such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Android, iOS, Mac, and Windows). Some TUI applications (e.g. `ncurses` programs) can do certain things to make themselves more accessible (such as `alpine`'s `force-arrow-cursor` setting). Most command-line applications are fairly accessible as-is. This criterion is often N/A, e.g., for program libraries. Here are some examples of actions to take or issues to consider:
    • Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language ( WCAG 2.0 guideline 1.1)
    • Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element. ( WCAG 2.0 guideline 1.4.1)
    • The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for large text, incidental text, and logotypes ( WCAG 2.0 guideline 1.4.3)
    • Make all functionality available from a keyboard (WCAG guideline 2.1)
    • A GUI or web-based project SHOULD test with at least one screen-reader on the target platform(s) (e.g. NVDA, Jaws, or WindowEyes on Windows; VoiceOver on Mac & iOS; Orca on Linux/BSD; TalkBack on Android). TUI programs MAY work to reduce overdraw to prevent redundant reading by screen-readers.

    Overall ONAP adherence to this is probably going to be handled ONAP wide, Policy will schedule it as a feature for future releases.

    Barely enough for a badge.

    The software produced by the project SHOULD be internationalized to enable easy localization for the target audience's culture, region, or language. If internationalization (i18n) does not apply (e.g., the software doesn't generate text intended for end-users and doesn't sort human-readable text), select "not applicable" (N/A). [internationalization]
    Localization "refers to the adaptation of a product, application or document content to meet the language, cultural and other requirements of a specific target market (a locale)." Internationalization is the "design and development of a product, application or document content that enables easy localization for target audiences that vary in culture, region, or language." (See W3C's "Localization vs. Internationalization".) Software meets this criterion simply by being internationalized. No localization for another specific language is required, since once software has been internationalized it's possible for others to work on localization.


  • Other

    Enough for a badge!

    If the project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) store passwords for authentication of external users, the passwords MUST be stored as iterated hashes with a per-user salt by using a key stretching (iterated) algorithm (e.g., PBKDF2, Bcrypt or Scrypt). If the project sites do not store passwords for this purpose, select "not applicable" (N/A). [sites_password_security]
    Note that the use of GitHub meets this criterion. This criterion only applies to passwords used for authentication of external users into the project sites. If the project sites must log in to other sites, they may need to store passwords for that purpose differently (since using an algorithm like Bcrypt would make those passwords useless). This applies criterion crypto_password_storage to the project sites, similar to sites_https.

    The project does not store password in the website, repository or downloads.

 Change Control 1/1

  • Versiones anteriores

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST maintain the most often used older versions of the product or provide an upgrade path to newer versions. If the upgrade path is difficult, the project MUST document how to perform the upgrade (e.g., the interfaces that have changed and detailed suggested steps to help upgrade). [maintenance_or_update]

    All major releases are tagged in gerrit and the artifacts are stored with the release information on onap.nexus. So we can access all old versions of the artifact. If and when a upgrade requires certain steps to be followed they are being added to the release documents as needed

 Informes 3/3

  • Bug-reporting process

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. [report_tracker]
  • Proceso de informe de vulnerabilidad

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST give credit to the reporter(s) of all vulnerability reports resolved in the last 12 months, except for the reporter(s) who request anonymity. If there have been no vulnerabilities resolved in the last 12 months, select "not applicable" (N/A). (URL required) [vulnerability_report_credit]

    Vulnerabilities can be reported using the link https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6591711 Currently we dont have any vulnerabilities reported, but the wiki page explains on how to report a vulnerability and how to report anonymously if you do not want the credit for it.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a documented process for responding to vulnerability reports. (URL required) [vulnerability_response_process]
    This is strongly related to vulnerability_report_process, which requires that there be a documented way to report vulnerabilities. It also related to vulnerability_report_response, which requires response to vulnerability reports within a certain time frame.

    Vulnerabilities handling is documented in https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6591711

 Calidad 19/19

  • Coding standards

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST identify the specific coding style guides for the primary languages it uses, and require that contributions generally comply with it. (URL required) [coding_standards]
    In most cases this is done by referring to some existing style guide(s), possibly listing differences. These style guides can include ways to improve readability and ways to reduce the likelihood of defects (including vulnerabilities). Many programming languages have one or more widely-used style guides. Examples of style guides include Google's style guides and SEI CERT Coding Standards.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST automatically enforce its selected coding style(s) if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can do so in the selected language(s). [coding_standards_enforced]
    This MAY be implemented using static analysis tool(s) and/or by forcing the code through code reformatters. In many cases the tool configuration is included in the project's repository (since different projects may choose different configurations). Projects MAY allow style exceptions (and typically will); where exceptions occur, they MUST be rare and documented in the code at their locations, so that these exceptions can be reviewed and so that tools can automatically handle them in the future. Examples of such tools include ESLint (JavaScript), Rubocop (Ruby), and devtools check (R).

    Policy Framework project utilizes the ONAP checkstyle using the Maven maven-checkstyle-plugin.

  • Working build system

    Enough for a badge!

    Build systems for native binaries MUST honor the relevant compiler and linker (environment) variables passed in to them (e.g., CC, CFLAGS, CXX, CXXFLAGS, and LDFLAGS) and pass them to compiler and linker invocations. A build system MAY extend them with additional flags; it MUST NOT simply replace provided values with its own. If no native binaries are being generated, select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_standard_variables]
    It should be easy to enable special build features like Address Sanitizer (ASAN), or to comply with distribution hardening best practices (e.g., by easily turning on compiler flags to do so).

    Policy is written primarily in Java and does not create native binary applications.

    There is some Javascript in legacy applications scheduled to be deprecated post Frankfurt release.

    Enough for a badge!

    The build and installation system SHOULD preserve debugging information if they are requested in the relevant flags (e.g., "install -s" is not used). If there is no build or installation system (e.g., typical JavaScript libraries), select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_preserve_debug]
    E.G., setting CFLAGS (C) or CXXFLAGS (C++) should create the relevant debugging information if those languages are used, and they should not be stripped during installation. Debugging information is needed for support and analysis, and also useful for measuring the presence of hardening features in the compiled binaries.

    The application does not create native binaries.

    Enough for a badge!

    The build system for the software produced by the project MUST NOT recursively build subdirectories if there are cross-dependencies in the subdirectories. If there is no build or installation system (e.g., typical JavaScript libraries), select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_non_recursive]
    The project build system's internal dependency information needs to be accurate, otherwise, changes to the project may not build correctly. Incorrect builds can lead to defects (including vulnerabilities). A common mistake in large build systems is to use a "recursive build" or "recursive make", that is, a hierarchy of subdirectories containing source files, where each subdirectory is independently built. Unless each subdirectory is fully independent, this is a mistake, because the dependency information is incorrect.

    The application does not create native binaries.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST be able to repeat the process of generating information from source files and get exactly the same bit-for-bit result. If no building occurs (e.g., scripting languages where the source code is used directly instead of being compiled), select "not applicable" (N/A). [build_repeatable]
    GCC and clang users may find the -frandom-seed option useful; in some cases, this can be resolved by forcing some sort order. More suggestions can be found at the reproducible build site.

    All releases are tagged in gerrit(git), and the builds are controlled using jenkins. By providing the git tag information the same image can be build over and over again with same bit-for-bit result.

  • Installation system

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide a way to easily install and uninstall the software produced by the project using a commonly-used convention. [installation_common]
    Examples include using a package manager (at the system or language level), "make install/uninstall" (supporting DESTDIR), a container in a standard format, or a virtual machine image in a standard format. The installation and uninstallation process (e.g., its packaging) MAY be implemented by a third party as long as it is FLOSS.

    All packages are delivered either as an jar artifact or a docker image. In case of maven artifacts, they can be removed using the pom file. In case of docker container. We can delete the container we dont want. Also control the orchestration in Kubernetes if you want to exclude certain docker images.

    Enough for a badge!

    The installation system for end-users MUST honor standard conventions for selecting the location where built artifacts are written to at installation time. For example, if it installs files on a POSIX system it MUST honor the DESTDIR environment variable. If there is no installation system or no standard convention, select "not applicable" (N/A). [installation_standard_variables]

    The compiled docker images and jar files can be installed/used as the user sees fit. Both run on JVM or docker. So there is no reason to selecting locations etc.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide a way for potential developers to quickly install all the project results and support environment necessary to make changes, including the tests and test environment. This MUST be performed with a commonly-used convention. [installation_development_quick]
    This MAY be implemented using a generated container and/or installation script(s). External dependencies would typically be installed by invoking system and/or language package manager(s), per external_dependencies.

    All the components require only java and maven to begin with for a developer to quickly install and test it. Even for deployment using OOM and the right amount of resources, we can deploy the full Policy/ONAP suite in less than a day. The steps are documented in https://onap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submodules/oom.git/docs/oom_quickstart_guide.html

  • Externally-maintained components

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST list external dependencies in a computer-processable way. (URL required) [external_dependencies]
    Typically this is done using the conventions of package manager and/or build system. Note that this helps implement installation_development_quick.

    External dependencies are controlled using the pom file, which can be found in the root folder for the projects. We store most of our common dependencies in our policy/parent project's pom.xml: https://gerrit.onap.org/r/gitweb?p=policy/parent.git;a=blob;f=pom.xml;h=784e549b0791d9f567eb3392dc9dedd097c26a1b;hb=refs/heads/master

    Enough for a badge!

    Projects MUST monitor or periodically check their external dependencies (including convenience copies) to detect known vulnerabilities, and fix exploitable vulnerabilities or verify them as unexploitable. [dependency_monitoring]
    This can be done using an origin analyzer / dependency checking tool such as OWASP's Dependency-Check, Sonatype's Nexus Auditor, Black Duck's Protex, Synopsys' Protecode, and Bundler-audit (for Ruby). Some package managers include mechanisms to do this. It is acceptable if the components' vulnerability cannot be exploited, but this analysis is difficult and it is sometimes easier to simply update or fix the part.

    NexusIQ sonar scan is run on all the projects on a weekly basis

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST either:
    1. make it easy to identify and update reused externally-maintained components; or
    2. use the standard components provided by the system or programming language.
    Then, if a vulnerability is found in a reused component, it will be easy to update that component. [updateable_reused_components]
    A typical way to meet this criterion is to use system and programming language package management systems. Many FLOSS programs are distributed with "convenience libraries" that are local copies of standard libraries (possibly forked). By itself, that's fine. However, if the program *must* use these local (forked) copies, then updating the "standard" libraries as a security update will leave these additional copies still vulnerable. This is especially an issue for cloud-based systems; if the cloud provider updates their "standard" libaries but the program won't use them, then the updates don't actually help. See, e.g., "Chromium: Why it isn't in Fedora yet as a proper package" by Tom Callaway.

    External components are maintained through Maven. The user can get a list of all included components using the maven dependency tree and can update or reuse as they see fit

    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD avoid using deprecated or obsolete functions and APIs where FLOSS alternatives are available in the set of technology it uses (its "technology stack") and to a supermajority of the users the project supports (so that users have ready access to the alternative). [interfaces_current]

    We avoid depending on deprecated/obsolete functions.

  • Automated test suite

    Enough for a badge!

    An automated test suite MUST be applied on each check-in to a shared repository for at least one branch. This test suite MUST produce a report on test success or failure. [automated_integration_testing]
    This requirement can be viewed as a subset of test_continuous_integration, but focused on just testing, without requiring continuous integration.

    Automatic test suites are run every time before merging the code. The code check in cannot pass with out jenkins posting a +1 on the review.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST add regression tests to an automated test suite for at least 50% of the bugs fixed within the last six months. [regression_tests_added50]

    We require JUnit tests to be added to support bug fixes if they are not present.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have FLOSS automated test suite(s) that provide at least 80% statement coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this criterion in the selected language. [test_statement_coverage80]
    Many FLOSS tools are available to measure test coverage, including gcov/lcov, Blanket.js, Istanbul, JCov, and covr (R). Note that meeting this criterion is not a guarantee that the test suite is thorough, instead, failing to meet this criterion is a strong indicator of a poor test suite.

    We use sonar to measure the overall code/branch coverage. policy/common 84.2% policy/models 89.1% policy/api 77.1% policy/pap 87.7% policy/apex-pdp 78.7% policy/drools-pdp 76.5% policy/xacml-pdp 68.4% policy/drools-applications 78.7% policy/engine 57.7% (to be deprecated) policy/distribution 91.2%

  • New functionality testing

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a formal written policy that as major new functionality is added, tests for the new functionality MUST be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy_mandated]

    Contributing guide lines for development is recorded in https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Development+Procedures+and+Policies

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST include, in its documented instructions for change proposals, the policy that tests are to be added for major new functionality. [tests_documented_added]
    However, even an informal rule is acceptable as long as the tests are being added in practice.

    This is documented on our wiki: Code Coverage and Static Code Analysis

  • Banderas de advertencia

    Enough for a badge!

    Projects MUST be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. [warnings_strict]
    Some warnings cannot be effectively enabled on some projects. What is needed is evidence that the project is striving to enable warning flags where it can, so that errors are detected early.

    Build systems run the compile with test flag enabled by default. So any failure in test cases will fail the ci and the merge request.

 Seguridad 13/13

  • Conocimiento de desarrollo seguro

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST implement secure design principles (from "know_secure_design"), where applicable. If the project is not producing software, select "not applicable" (N/A). [implement_secure_design]
    For example, the project results should have fail-safe defaults (access decisions should deny by default, and projects' installation should be secure by default). They should also have complete mediation (every access that might be limited must be checked for authority and be non-bypassable). Note that in some cases principles will conflict, in which case a choice must be made (e.g., many mechanisms can make things more complex, contravening "economy of mechanism" / keep it simple).

    in case of exception or any other issue during login in the Policy GUI, the login is denied.

  • Use buenas prácticas criptográficas

    Note that some software does not need to use cryptographic mechanisms.

    Enough for a badge!

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

    POLICY runs security scan software to uncover any security risks.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD support multiple cryptographic algorithms, so users can quickly switch if one is broken. Common symmetric key algorithms include AES, Twofish, and Serpent. Common cryptographic hash algorithm alternatives include SHA-2 (including SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384 AND SHA-512) and SHA-3. [crypto_algorithm_agility]

    Certificates are managed through AAF micro-service which will be deployed with ONAP suite

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST support storing authentication credentials (such as passwords and dynamic tokens) and private cryptographic keys in files that are separate from other information (such as configuration files, databases, and logs), and permit users to update and replacement them without code recompilation. If the project never processes authentication credentials and private cryptographic keys, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_credential_agility]

    All authentication credentials are stored in configuration files separate from codebase itself. These configuration files are located within the kubernetes helmes charts and are overridable.

    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project SHOULD support secure protocols for all of its network communications, such as SSHv2 or later, TLS1.2 or later (HTTPS), IPsec, SFTP, and SNMPv3. Insecure protocols such as FTP, HTTP, telnet, SSLv3 or earlier, and SSHv1 SHOULD be disabled by default, and only enabled if the user specifically configures it. If the software produced by the project does not support network communications, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_used_network]

    The projects supports secure TLS and HTTPS and Insecure protocols are disabled by default in these applications, they cab be over-ridden by user configuration

    Enough for a badge!


    The products support TLS version 1.2

    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST, if it supports TLS, perform TLS certificate verification by default when using TLS, including on subresources. If the software does not use TLS, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_certificate_verification]

    Certificate validation is done before answering any calls.

    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST, if it supports TLS, perform certificate verification before sending HTTP headers with private information (such as secure cookies). If the software does not use TLS, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_verification_private]

    The certificate is validated before sending http headers or private information.

  • Secure release

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST cryptographically sign releases of the project results intended for widespread use, and there MUST be a documented process explaining to users how they can obtain the public signing keys and verify the signature(s). The private key for these signature(s) MUST NOT be on site(s) used to directly distribute the software to the public. If releases are not intended for widespread use, select "not applicable" (N/A). [signed_releases]
    The project results include both source code and any generated deliverables where applicable (e.g., executables, packages, and containers). Generated deliverables MAY be signed separately from source code. These MAY be implemented as signed git tags (using cryptographic digital signatures). Projects MAY provide generated results separately from tools like git, but in those cases, the separate results MUST be separately signed.

    All release artifacts are signed by the Linux Foundation prior to release.

    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that in the version control system, each important version tag (a tag that is part of a major release, minor release, or fixes publicly noted vulnerabilities) be cryptographically signed and verifiable as described in signed_releases. [version_tags_signed]

    All release artifacts are cryptographically signed by the Linux Foundation prior to release.

  • Otros problemas de seguridad

    Enough for a badge!

    The project results MUST check all inputs from potentially untrusted sources to ensure they are valid (a *whitelist*), and reject invalid inputs, if there are any restrictions on the data at all. [input_validation]
    Note that comparing input against a list of "bad formats" (aka a *blacklist*) is normally not enough, because attackers can often work around a blacklist. In particular, numbers are converted into internal formats and then checked if they are between their minimum and maximum (inclusive), and text strings are checked to ensure that they are valid text patterns (e.g., valid UTF-8, length, syntax, etc.). Some data may need to be "anything at all" (e.g., a file uploader), but these would typically be rare.

    The project strives to validate all input to functions. The inputs that are provided to the services are checked against existing models such as OXM or search-abstraction layer and only valid inputs are allowed to be pass through. We provide a policy/models repo that clients can use to ensure their input is valid.

    Enough for a badge!

    Hardening mechanisms SHOULD be used in the software produced by the project so that software defects are less likely to result in security vulnerabilities. [hardening]

    The project tries to use hardening mechanism whenever possible. Eg we use transaction id for tracking transactions through multiple services and also we use http headers to identify the application where possible

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide an assurance case that justifies why its security requirements are met. The assurance case MUST include: a description of the threat model, clear identification of trust boundaries, an argument that secure design principles have been applied, and an argument that common implementation security weaknesses have been countered. (URL required) [assurance_case]
    An assurance case is "a documented body of evidence that provides a convincing and valid argument that a specified set of critical claims regarding a system’s properties are adequately justified for a given application in a given environment" ( "Software Assurance Using Structured Assurance Case Models", Thomas Rhodes et al, NIST Interagency Report 7608). Trust boundaries are boundaries where data or execution changes its level of trust, e.g., a server's boundaries in a typical web application. It's common to list secure design principles (such as Saltzer and Schroeer) and common implementation security weaknesses (such as the OWASP top 10 or CWE/SANS top 25), and show how each are countered. The BadgeApp assurance case may be a useful example. This is related to documentation_security, documentation_architecture, and implement_secure_design.

    The project release wikis document all our security vulnerabilities. The release notes in the documentation provides list of fixes done per release. https://onap.readthedocs.io/en/dublin/submodules/policy/parent.git/docs/release-notes.html

 Analysis 2/2

  • Análisis estático de código

    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use at least one static analysis tool with rules or approaches to look for common vulnerabilities in the analyzed language or environment, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. [static_analysis_common_vulnerabilities]
    Static analysis tools that are specifically designed to look for common vulnerabilities are more likely to find them. That said, using any static tools will typically help find some problems, so we are suggesting but not requiring this for the 'passing' level badge.

    Sonar uses different rules for static code analysis.

  • Dynamic code analysis

    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) MUST be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]
    Examples of mechanisms to detect memory safety problems include Address Sanitizer (ASAN) (available in GCC and LLVM), Memory Sanitizer, and valgrind. Other potentially-used tools include thread sanitizer and undefined behavior sanitizer. Widespread assertions would also work.

    JAVA is used which performs memory management.

This data is available under the Creative Commons Attribution version 3.0 or later license (CC-BY-3.0+). All are free to share and adapt the data, but must give appropriate credit. Please credit Saryu Shah and the CII Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Saryu Shah.
Entry created on 2018-02-02 19:29:43 UTC, last updated on 2019-07-23 14:27:28 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2018-05-02 14:24:07 UTC.