You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, I'm Harshita. I’m working with CNCF and the Google Open Source Security Team for the GSoC 2024 term. We are collaborating to enhance security practices across various CNCF projects. The goal is to improve security for all CNCF projects by both using OpenSSF Scorecards and implementing its security improvements.
As this project already has scorecard action, I'm here to increase the final score by going over each check. I've listed all of the checks where work needs to be done, in order of its criticality. I plan to submit each PR for each fix. Please let me know what you think and for which ones a PR is welcome that I will submit it ASAP.
The dependencies have almost all the container images pinned by hash; the scorecard report is also showing that go and npm need to be pinned by hash, but pinning those would introduce the risk of running outdated versions.
I can see fuzzers in the cncf/fuzzing repo for argo-cd, and it is also integrated with OSS-Fuzz, but the fuzzing score remains 0. I am not sure why this is happening. Help from maintainers will be highly appreciated.
I can see fuzzers in the cncf/fuzzing repo for argo-cd, and it is also integrated with OSS-Fuzz, but the fuzzing score remains 0. I am not sure why this is happening. Help from maintainers will be highly appreciated.
I've wondered about this myself. I assume it has something to do with how the OpenSSF Scorecard calculates the fuzzing score.
I've taken a look at this issue and it has to do with argo's setup in OSS-Fuzz.
Specifically, Scorecard identifies that a project is fuzzed by OSS-Fuzz by comparing its URL to the main_repo registered in project.yaml. In argo's case, that is main_repo: "https://github.com/argoproj", not [...]/argoproj/argo-cd.
This setup works well for the project and I in no means suggest changing it. But it unfortunately means Scorecard can't detect it. And there's currently no "workaround" to correct the Scorecard score for this, I'm afraid.
That being said, Scorecard will soon release a new major version (v5.0) that will include a new feature called "Maintainer annotations", which are meant to mitigate precisely this sort of issue. These annotations will allow maintainers to inform users that "hey, Scorecard didn't quite understand what's going on here".
Summary
Hi, I'm Harshita. I’m working with CNCF and the Google Open Source Security Team for the GSoC 2024 term. We are collaborating to enhance security practices across various CNCF projects. The goal is to improve security for all CNCF projects by both using OpenSSF Scorecards and implementing its security improvements.
As this project already has scorecard action, I'm here to increase the final score by going over each check. I've listed all of the checks where work needs to be done, in order of its criticality. I plan to submit each PR for each fix. Please let me know what you think and for which ones a PR is welcome that I will submit it ASAP.
Current Score: 8.4
Scorecard Report: https://scorecard.dev/viewer/?uri=github.com/argoproj/argo-cd
Here's a few checks we can work on to improve the project's security posture:
Vulnerabilities: Score = 0
osv-scanner.toml
to mark some of these as not impacting/ignored.Pinned-Dependencies: Score = 7
Fuzzing: Score = 0
/cc @joycebrum @diogoteles08 @pnacht @nate-double-u
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: