mirror of https://github.com/cncf/toc.git
Lin Sun
parent
a7de8aab06
commit
a3373ce56a
|
|
@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
|
|||
# In-toto Adopter Interview - GitHub
|
||||
|
||||
Interviewee: Zach Steindler, Principal Eng at GitHub
|
||||
Interview date: Oct 7, 2024
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
|
|||
# In-toto Adopter Interview - GitHub
|
||||
|
||||
Interviewee: Ian Dunbar-hall, Head of Open Source Program Office, Lockheed Martins
|
||||
Interview date: Sept 3, 2024
|
||||
|
||||
## Organization Intro
|
||||
|
||||
### Can you give us an overview of your organization and what it does?
|
||||
|
||||
[Lockheed Martins](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/contact.html) is a leading aerospace and defense company.
|
||||
|
||||
## Motivation
|
||||
|
||||
### Compared with other products in this space (proprietary and open), what drew you to the project?
|
||||
|
||||
I recall it was at KubeCon either 2020 or 2021, and I went to the contribfest for the in-toto project. The project solves a foundational need in our space, securing software supply chain, which is very critical to our customers for delivering high quality products. Without it, it has resulted in very bad outcomes, Solarwinds, or Crowdstrike incidents, for example.
|
||||
|
||||
## Usage Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
### How does your organization use the project and how long have you used it?
|
||||
|
||||
For the in-toto specification, we don’t directly work with specification but consume it as part of libraries.
|
||||
|
||||
For the in-toto subprojects (application or libraries), we started to use the libraries in our OSS projects in Jan 2023. We have also incorporated in-toto attestation for corporate networks for any OSS projects that come to internal & external use. Basically any time when we consume any OSS projects, we check on the following:
|
||||
- Is the OSS project approved for use in our company?
|
||||
- How do we know if someone maliciously modified it in the corporate network?
|
||||
- Can we still adopting it for products we are delivering to our customers?
|
||||
|
||||
### What version is used and what is your update cadence with the project?
|
||||
|
||||
We update the libraries fairly regularly, whenever any core library gets updated.
|
||||
Specification changes are also adopted as part of the library update. We don’t implement the spec ourselves.
|
||||
|
||||
### Can you walk me through what your experience was in either adopting it outright or integrating it with your existing services and applications? What challenges did you experience with the project?
|
||||
|
||||
Overall, a really positive experience!
|
||||
- Well organized oss projects, very strong community behind it.
|
||||
- Very large enterprises and universities are involved. Easy to get support.
|
||||
- Well beyond community compared with other graduated projects.
|
||||
- We also contributed some PR and got good feedback/reviews. Testify donated a subproject under in-toto (command line client to create attestation) and we use it to create attestation for everything.
|
||||
- Lots of end users and vendors.
|
||||
|
||||
### Did you find the information in the repo valuable to your implementation? What specifically?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, without a ton of background, we were able to quickly incorporate the in-toto python libraries. Slack/community meetings are both helpful. Easy to get technical recommendations. Docs are quite good for such a complex problem.
|
||||
|
||||
### Has your implementation of the project provided measurable value?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. The in-toto capabilities in our products were demo-ed frequently. We are writing a white paper around how to use in-toto across public sectors for supply chain security via the public sector of the CNCF end user groups.
|
||||
|
||||
### Do you have any future plans regarding the project? More involvement, feature requests, expansion, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
- Need to drive more adoptions within the company.
|
||||
- We are working on the SBOMit project within OpenSSF, which is built on top of in-toto:
|
||||
* https://github.com/sbomit/specification
|
||||
* [Bomctl](https://github.com/bomctl/bomctl) will be announced as a sandbox project as part of OpenSSF this thurs which also uses in-toto.
|
||||
|
||||
## Perception
|
||||
|
||||
### What is your perception in terms of the project’s:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Community openness
|
||||
|
||||
Very active community, weekly meeting for some part of the in-toto ecosystem. Variety of the people involved speak very well for the project.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Governance
|
||||
|
||||
Steering committee was formed and a lot of people involved know the spec well, a good technical community.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Community growth potential
|
||||
|
||||
Good growth and expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Maintainer diversity and ladder
|
||||
|
||||
Totally see this growing.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Maintainer response
|
||||
|
||||
Nothing but quick response and feedback.
|
||||
|
||||
### How are you participating in the project community?
|
||||
|
||||
We have done in-toto related talks at CloudNativeSecurityCon, OpenSource Summit etc. We are pretty active in the community, being on the community calls. We are also maintaining a few other projects which are built on top of in-toto.
|
||||
|
||||
### Did you need to engage with the community members or maintainers? If so, what was the context of the engagement and did it reach an acceptable outcome?
|
||||
|
||||
A variety of reasons. My first one was a first time in-toto user and then I wanted to incorporate in-toto in our OSS tool, and a few other minor contributions. All were addressed timely with good feedback. Really good experience which led me to be more deeply involved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Strengths
|
||||
|
||||
### In your opinion, what are the overall strengths of the project?
|
||||
|
||||
Beyond the community, and diversity of others using it, the spec is also very flexible. You can add to it, or expand it or create a unique solution with it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Improvements
|
||||
|
||||
### Is there something you feel that holds the project back from reaching its ultimate potential?
|
||||
|
||||
Growing the list of attestation types of in-toto will strengthen the project more. For example, adding an OSS program approval.
|
||||
|
||||
### In your opinion, what can the project do better?
|
||||
|
||||
- Has done a really good job of getting people using in-toto and sometimes people don’t really realize they are using it.
|
||||
* [SLSA](https://slsa.dev/) is built on top of in-toto, which is very well known. Yet people don’t realize it.
|
||||
|
||||
- Needs more marketing or branding because people don’t realize it as much as they are using it.
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
|
|||
# In-toto Graduation Due Diligence
|
||||
|
||||
- [In-toto graduation application issue](https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/1162/)
|
||||
|
||||
Project Repo(s): http://github.com/in-toto
|
||||
Project Site: https://in-toto.io/
|
||||
Communication: #in-toto on CNCF Slack Workspace
|
||||
|
||||
Project points of contacts: Santiago Torres, santiagotorres@purdue.edu
|
||||
|
||||
## Graduation Criteria Summary for In-toto
|
||||
|
||||
### Criteria Evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
Lin Sun (@linsun) conducted the due diligence of in-toto who applied for Graduation. The project has completed the criteria that show its maturity at the applied level. The following criteria implementations are noteworthy to call out:
|
||||
|
||||
- A notable stable project with mature capabilities and a wide [adopter](https://github.com/in-toto/friends?tab=readme-ov-file#project-adopters) base.
|
||||
- The project has a wide range of interest across academic and cross different industries.
|
||||
- The project [integrates](https://github.com/in-toto/friends?tab=readme-ov-file#project-integrations) with various other projects in the cloud native ecosystem such as GitHub, GitLab, GUAC, Tekton, etc.
|
||||
- Implementation of the steering committee to capture adopters' voice in the project development and roadmap.
|
||||
- The project is not only vendor neutral but also has a very diversed set of maintainers, adopters and integrators.
|
||||
- The project does an excellent job of making sure that its public meetings are accessible, with notes, and easy to find meeting links.
|
||||
|
||||
The following actions were provided to the project that were considered blocking but have since been resolved:
|
||||
|
||||
- Enable convenient linkage for community meeting notes.
|
||||
- Updating the list of subprojects in GitHub, found from the Governancy review.
|
||||
- Provide an updated roadmap document in GitHub.
|
||||
|
||||
### Final Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
The TOC has found the project to have satisfied the criteria for Graduation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Adoption Assertion
|
||||
|
||||
### Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
## Application Process Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### Suggested
|
||||
|
||||
N/A
|
||||
|
||||
### Required
|
||||
|
||||
- [X] **Give a presentation and engage with the domain specific TAG(s) to increase awareness**
|
||||
|
||||
Presentation was given to the TAG security in July 2014.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **TAG provides insight/recommendation of the project in the context of the landscape**
|
||||
|
||||
[Very strong support](https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/1162#issuecomment-2236636343) from TAG security on in-toto's CNCF graduation
|
||||
|
||||
- [X] **All project metadata and resources are [vendor-neutral](https://contribute.cncf.io/maintainers/community/vendor-neutrality/).**
|
||||
|
||||
Don't see any concern with vendor-neutral for in-toto project.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Review and acknowledgement of expectations for graduated projects and requirements for moving forward through the CNCF Maturity levels.**
|
||||
- [x] Met during Project's application on 21-06-2024.
|
||||
|
||||
Completion of this due diligence document, resolution of concerns raised, and presented for public comment satisifies the Due Diligence Review criteria.
|
||||
|
||||
- [X] **Additional documentation as appropriate for project type, e.g.: installation documentation, end user documentation, reference implementation and/or code samples.**
|
||||
|
||||
Docs are available at https://in-toto.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html which includes install, API, code sample, and how to contribute etc.
|
||||
|
||||
## Governance and Maintainers
|
||||
|
||||
Note: this section may be augmented by the completion of a Governance Review from TAG Contributor Strategy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Suggested
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Governance has continuously been iterated upon by the project as a result of their experience applying it, with the governance history demonstrating evolution of maturity alongside the project's maturity evolution.**
|
||||
|
||||
[Governance doc](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) is clear.
|
||||
|
||||
### Required
|
||||
|
||||
- [X] **Clear and discoverable project governance documentation.**
|
||||
|
||||
Able to find it easily.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Governance is up to date with actual project activities, including any meetings, elections, leadership, or approval processes.**
|
||||
|
||||
TODO: need some work here.
|
||||
|
||||
- [X] **Governance clearly documents [vendor-neutrality](https://contribute.cncf.io/maintainers/community/vendor-neutrality/) of project direction.**
|
||||
|
||||
Vendor neutral is clearly mentioned twice in the governance doc. Steering committee composition is also diverse at the moment.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document how the project makes decisions on leadership roles, contribution acceptance, requests to the CNCF, and changes to governance or project goals.**
|
||||
|
||||
Documented [here](https://github.com/in-toto/community/tree/main/elections)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Document how role, function-based members, or sub-teams are assigned, onboarded, and removed for specific teams (example: Security Response Committee).**
|
||||
|
||||
[GOVERNANCE.md document](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) shows various project roles and how decisions are made.
|
||||
|
||||
- [X] **Document complete list of current maintainers, including names, contact information, domain of responsibility, and affiliation.**
|
||||
|
||||
[Maintainer list](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/blob/develop/MAINTAINERS.txt)
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **A number of active maintainers which is appropriate to the size and scope of the project.**
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document a complete maintainer lifecycle process (including roles, onboarding, offboarding, and emeritus status).**
|
||||
|
||||
The project maintains a description of different roles and their election process in its [community repository](https://github.com/in-toto/community)
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Demonstrate usage of the maintainer lifecycle with outcomes, either through the addition or replacement of maintainers as project events have required.**
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainers for subprojects have been managed by the ITSC and Sub-project maintainers as pull-requests to their corresponding MAINTAINERS.txt files (e.g., [[1, self nomination](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-rs/pull/89)],[[2, stepping down](https://github.com/in-toto/attestation/pull/406)],[[3, community nomination](https://github.com/in-toto/witness/pull/385)]).
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Project maintainers from at least 2 organizations that demonstrates survivability.**
|
||||
|
||||
As an intentionally minimal security specification / framework, we deliberately do not have a high degree of feature additions in the project. Effort comes on either the implementations, such as the Go implementation (used by tools like Trivy and Tekton), the Python reference implementation (used by Datadog), the Java implementation (used by the Jenkins plugin and Rabobank), and the specification (where all implementations coordinate for interoperability).
|
||||
|
||||
Since reaching the incubation stage, the in-toto project has switched its governance model to use a steering committee. The first in-toto Steering Committee (ITSC) was voted on by the in-toto community and comprises five members from organizations spanning industry and academia. The ITSC has oversight over all in-toto sub-projects such as the specification, the Attestation Framework, and implementations maintained by the community written in Python, Go, Java, and Rust. Each sub-project has its own set of maintainers recorded in a CODEOWNERS or MAINTAINERS file in its repository. Across our sub-projects, we have contributors from a diverse set of organizations like Google, Kusari, New York University, Purdue University, Verizon, Intel, and TestifySec.
|
||||
|
||||
The current ITSC comprises of the following
|
||||
- Santiago Torres-Arias (Purdue University)
|
||||
- Justin Cappos (New York University)
|
||||
- Jack Kelly (Control Plane)
|
||||
- Cole Kennedy (TestifySec)
|
||||
- Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy (Datadog)
|
||||
|
||||
We have had active contributions from an array of contributors across the CNCF landscape. One way to see this is via the substantial changes that made their way into the specification.
|
||||
|
||||
Changes to the in-toto standard largely come in the form of ITEs (in-toto enhancements). There is a substantial ITE, ITE-4, that standardized non-file artifact specifications for in-toto metadata. The stakeholders in it are Github, Conda, SPDX and Google's Grafeas.
|
||||
|
||||
Another significant ITE is [ITE-6](https://github.com/in-toto/ITE/blob/master/ITE/6/README.adoc). This enhancement introduced the in-toto Attestation Framework to record and disseminate software supply chain specific information like build provenance, code review results, test results, SBOMs, vulnerability scans, and more. in-toto attestations are now used by GitHub for NPM build provenance, OpenVEX, Docker buildx, scanners like Trivy that can generate signed SBOMs, Tekton Chains, Sigstore, GUAC, Witness, and Archivista. SolarWinds, in their next generated build system introduced after SUNBURST, also generate in-toto attestations.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Code and Doc ownership in Github and elsewhere matches documented governance roles.**
|
||||
|
||||
TODO
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document agreement that project will adopt CNCF Code of Conduct.**
|
||||
- [x] **CNCF Code of Conduct is cross-linked from other governance documents.**
|
||||
|
||||
The CoC and the assertion of adherence is referenced in the [GOVERNANCE.md](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#code-of-conduct).
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **All subprojects, if any, are listed.**
|
||||
|
||||
Subprojects are listed in the [README.md](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/README.md#subprojects) file of in-toto/community.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **If the project has subprojects: subproject leadership, contribution, maturity status documented, including add/remove process.**
|
||||
|
||||
Subproject leadership is encoded in a subproject-level MAINTAINERS.txt file (e.g., [in-toto-rs](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-rs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.txt)). Sub-project maturity is encoded in the project's README.md file (e.g., [in-toto-rs](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-rs/blob/master/README.md)). Add/remove processes are handled by the in-toto steering committee.
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributors and Community
|
||||
|
||||
Note: this section may be augmented by the completion of a Governance Review from TAG Contributor Strategy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Suggested
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Contributor ladder with multiple roles for contributors.**
|
||||
|
||||
The contributor ladder is encoded in the [GOVERNANCE.md document](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md)
|
||||
|
||||
### Required
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Clearly defined and discoverable process to submit issues or changes.**
|
||||
|
||||
A contribution guide is placed at the toplevel [community repository](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md). A security disclosure process is encoded on the a separate [SECURITY.md](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/SECURITY.md) file.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Project must have, and document, at least one public communications channel for users and/or contributors.**
|
||||
|
||||
Communication channels are encoded in the [website](https://in-toto.io/contact/). It contains a developer facing mailing list, a public mailng list, a slack join link, github and IRC contacts.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **List and document all project communication channels, including subprojects (mail list/slack/etc.). List any non-public communications channels and what their special purpose is.**
|
||||
|
||||
Communication channels are encoded in the [website](https://in-toto.io/contact/)
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Up-to-date public meeting schedulers and/or integration with CNCF calendar.**
|
||||
|
||||
in-toto community meetings are scheduled on the first friday of each month at 11AM et, and is displayed in the [CNCF public calendar](https://tockify.com/cncf.public.events/monthly?search=in-toto).
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Documentation of how to contribute, with increasing detail as the project matures.**
|
||||
|
||||
A contribution guide is placed at the toplevel [community repository](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Demonstrate contributor activity and recruitment.**
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- (Project assertion goes here) -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Engineering Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document project goals and objectives that illustrate the project’s differentiation in the Cloud Native landscape as well as outlines how this project fulfills an outstanding need and/or solves a problem differently.**
|
||||
|
||||
One of the most pressing security problems in cloud native is software supply chain security. in-toto addresses this issue by providing a secure and trustworthy means for representing all the operations within the cloud-native pipeline and verifying that they were carried out to the letter.
|
||||
A good way to understand the need for in-toto in the Cloud Native space is to understand the value of signed SBOMs vs in-toto metadata + layouts. A signed SBOM indicates that some party (whose key you presumably have a reason to trust) states what the software contains. In contrast, in-toto will have signed information about the individual steps of the supply chain cryptographically linking metadata together from various parties and validating this all against the software’s policies. As a result, their protection modes would work quite differently in many cases. For example, see the following table:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Attack scenario | Signed SBOM Result | In-toto layout + metadata result |
|
||||
|-----------------|----------------------|----------------------------------|
|
||||
| Software manipulated after software supply chain completed | Detect and reject the malicious software | Detect and reject the malicious software |
|
||||
| Attacker compromises VCS and inserts malicious (unsigned) code where signatures are required |Undetected. User compromised. | Detect and reject the malicious software |
|
||||
| Attacker substitutes a malicious dependency (not signed by that dependeny’s maintainer) |Undetected. User compromised. | Detect and reject the malicious software
|
||||
| Attacker provides files to the build system which did not come from the VCS | Undetected. User compromised | Detect and reject the malicious software |
|
||||
| Attacker containerizes / packages binaries other than the ones the build system built | Undetected. User compromised | Detect and reject the malicious software |
|
||||
| Tests are not run on the software but it is (accidentally?) released to production | Undetected. User compromised | Detect and reject the malicious software |
|
||||
| The legal team has not reviewed source code licenses for included libraries | Undetected. Impact varies | Detect and reject the software |
|
||||
|
||||
One important thing to note about the table above is that it isn’t impossible for someone to do many of these steps and checks before signing an SBOM. If you did all of these checks, and signed the statements saying you did them to provide stronger validation, and distributed the root of trust for your signatures in a secure way, and managed situations where signing keys need to be revoked / rotated / expired, and handled trust delegation to different parties, and linked metadata between steps together, and let people write policies to reason about those steps, and let them link metadata in from dependencies to do so, and handled all of the above in scenarios where insiders can be maliciously interfering with your, system, then you would effectively reconstruct in-toto.
|
||||
We are aware of some efforts, like the Zephyr project, where project members have worked to try to reconstruct some of the guarantees of in-toto and decided to live with the gaps in their security for other portions. For groups that have done this work already this does make sense to us as a viable alternative in the short term. However, we do believe that using a common, holistic approach like in-toto will be necessary as projects continually add the missing security pieces from in-toto and want to reason more and more about each other as dependencies.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that in-toto is not a substitute for having appropriately secure steps in the software supply chain. For example, if you use an insecure process of building software that just curls and builds software from a website, in-toto will happily sign metadata indicating that you did the same insecure action indicated you would.
|
||||
|
||||
This is why projects like SLSA and FRSCA are built as an opinionated set of steps on top of in-toto. They specify which actions they feel are more important for software supply chain security and mandate their use.
|
||||
|
||||
These projects are solving different problems at different levels. In-toto allows you to capture information about your steps, ensure policies about them are applied, handle trust of keys, etc. Frameworks like SLSA and FRSCA use in-toto as a mechanism to capture and enforce a specific set of policies that result in more secure supply chains.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document what the project does, and why it does it - including viable cloud native use cases.**
|
||||
|
||||
https://in-toto.io/in-toto/ & https://github.com/in-toto/friends explain well what the project does and many integrations with other projects in the ecosystem.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document and maintain a public roadmap or other forward looking planning document or tracking mechanism.**
|
||||
|
||||
Roadmap for project with pointers to subproject ROADMAPs are encoded in a [ROADMAP.md file](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/ROADMAP.md)
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Roadmap change process is documented.**
|
||||
|
||||
Roadmap text [current roadmap](https://github.com/in-toto/community/tree/main/ROADMAP.md) outlines how and when the community-wide rodamap is updated (usually once a year). Each sub-project may also have their own ROADMAP that aligns to subproject-wide SLAs
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document overview of project architecture and software design that demonstrates viable cloud native use cases, as part of the project's documentation.**
|
||||
|
||||
The [friends](https://github.com/in-toto/friends) repository outlines how Cloud-native applications and integrations use in-toto and how the in-toto architecture aligns with its goals. Further, in-toto is published as a [peer-reviewed paper](https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/torres-arias) which outlines how it can be used in cloud-native CI/CD platforms, as well as social coding platforms and distributed buildsystems.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document the project's release process and guidelines publicly in a RELEASES.md or equivalent file that defines:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] Release expectations (scheduled or based on feature implementation)
|
||||
- [x] Tagging as stable, unstable, and security related releases
|
||||
- [ ] Information on branch and tag strategies
|
||||
- [ ] Branch and platform support and length of support
|
||||
- [x] Artifacts included in the release.
|
||||
- Additional information on topics such as LTS and edge releases are optional. Release expectations are a social contract between the project and its end users and hence changes to these should be well thought out, discussed, socialized and as necessary agreed upon by project leadership before getting rolled out.
|
||||
|
||||
in-toto has multiple implementations with varied release cadences depending on the involved stakeholders. For example, the Python implementation offers a feature-stable offering, which focuses on releasing bug-fix releases, whereas the golang implementation provides a "sandbox" for new and experimental features. As such, each subproject manages their own release cadence.
|
||||
|
||||
All implementations follow semver to communicate their feature support, as well as backwards and forwards compatiblity.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **History of regular, quality releases.**
|
||||
|
||||
A history of releases is [kept on our changelog](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/blob/develop/CHANGELOG.md)
|
||||
|
||||
## Security
|
||||
|
||||
Note: this section may be augemented by a joint-assessment performed by TAG Security.
|
||||
|
||||
### Suggested
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Achieving OpenSSF Best Practices silver or gold badge.**
|
||||
|
||||
[in-toto achieves a gold OpenSSF Best Practice badge](https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/1523?criteria_level=2)
|
||||
|
||||
### Required
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Clearly defined and discoverable process to report security issues.**
|
||||
|
||||
Repositories describe the disclosure process using a [SECURITY.md file](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/blob/develop/SECURITY.md)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Enforcing Access Control Rules to secure the code base against attacks (Example: two factor authentication enforcement, and/or use of ACL tools.)**
|
||||
|
||||
GitHub teams are used to provide granular access to different repositories within the organization. Protected branches are used to avoid pushes to master. Dependabot, and secret scanning is also added to all implementation repositories.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document assignment of security response roles and how reports are handled.**
|
||||
|
||||
Disclosure is handled by the ITSC. In addition, GitHub private vulnerability reporting is used (and has been successfully used before) to handle disclosures on implementations.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Document Security Self-Assessment.**
|
||||
|
||||
in-toto was the [first project to carry out a security self-assessment](https://github.com/cncf/tag-security/commit/06b71c4db99ba07107cba6cf8f6fc6d4461fce82) with TAG security, and aided in developing the current process.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Third Party Security Review.**
|
||||
|
||||
See the in-toto [Security Audit ‘23](https://in-toto.io/security-audit-23/).
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Achieve the Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Best Practices passing badge.**
|
||||
|
||||
The in-toto project has a [Gold CII (now OpenSSF) Best Practices Badge](https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1523?criteria_level=2). As of 31st of July, 2023, there are only 23 projects in the world to have such a distinction. The only other CNCF project with a Gold Badge is the [TUF project (a graduated security project)](http://theupdateframework.io).
|
||||
|
||||
According to the OpenSSF Best Practices website, the in-toto project received its initial OpenSSF Best Practices badge on January 5th, 2018.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ecosystem
|
||||
|
||||
### Suggested
|
||||
|
||||
N/A
|
||||
|
||||
### Required
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Publicly documented list of adopters, which may indicate their adoption level (dev/trialing, prod, etc.)**
|
||||
|
||||
Adoptions are documented in the [in-toto friends repository](https://github.com/in-toto/friends)
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Used in appropriate capacity by at least 3 independent + indirect/direct adopters, (these are not required to be in the publicly documented list of adopters)**
|
||||
|
||||
Many adopters and integrations are [documented](https://github.com/in-toto/friends).
|
||||
|
||||
The project provided the TOC with a list of adopters for verification of use of the project at the level expected, i.e. production use for graduation, dev/test for incubation.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **TOC verification of adopters.**
|
||||
|
||||
Refer to the Adoption portion of this document.
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] **Clearly documented integrations and/or compatibility with other CNCF projects as well as non-CNCF projects.**
|
||||
|
||||
Many integrations are [documented](https://github.com/in-toto/friends?tab=readme-ov-file#project-integrations).
|
||||
|
||||
#### Adoption
|
||||
|
||||
##### Adopter 1 - Lockheed Martins/Aerospace and defense company
|
||||
|
||||
This adopter interview is performed in Sept 2024 and recorded a very happy adopter who also contributes to the in-toto project. Refer to the [interview summary](in-toto-adopter-interview-lockheedmartins.md) for more details.
|
||||
|
||||
##### Adopter 2 - GitHub/Software company
|
||||
|
||||
This adopter interview is performed in Oct 2024 and recorded a very adopter who has great expereience interacting with the in-toto community. Refer to the [interview summary](in-toto-adopter-interview-github.md) for more details.
|
||||
|
||||
##### Adopter 3 - $COMPANY/$INDUSTRY
|
||||
|
||||
_If the Adopting organization needs to remain anonymous, stating the industry vertical is sufficient._
|
||||
MONTH YEAR
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue