falcosecurity/falco

Improvement of OpenSSF Scorecard Score

harshitasao opened this issue · 3 comments

harshitasao commented

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: 8.2

Scorecard report: https://scorecard.dev/viewer/?uri=github.com/falcosecurity/falco

Here's a few checks we can work on to improve the project's security posture:

  • Token-Permissions: Score = 0

    • The issue here is that many workflows doesn’t have a top-level read-only permissions block like present in the other workflows. Scorecard is quite severe in this check: a single workflow without top-level permissions gets a 0/10 for the check.
    • PR: #3299

  • Pinned-Dependencies: Score = 7

    • Some github actions and container image in Dockerfile are not pinned by hash, which is resulting in a low score. But pinning container images would introduce the risk of outdated images.
    • Pinning dependencies to a specific hash rather than allowing mutable versions or ranges of versions improves supply chain security.
    • PR: #3299

  • Fuzzing: Score = 0

    • Integrating the project with OSS-Fuzz by following the instructions here. The most difficult one on the list, maintainers help, is highly appreciated. For example, helping in identifying the components where fuzz testing will be added.
    • Issue: #3304

/cc @joycebrum @diogoteles08 @pnacht @nate-double-u

poiana commented

There is not a label identifying the kind of this issue.
Please specify it either using /kind <group> or manually from the side menu.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

FedeDP commented

For now,
/milestone 1.0.0

as this is a long-term work.