Skip to content

SECURITY.adoc

Latest commit

 

History

History
212 lines (149 loc) · 5.99 KB

SECURITY.adoc

File metadata and controls

212 lines (149 loc) · 5.99 KB
Raw

Security Policy

Overview

The aggregate-library (aLib) project takes security seriously. As a specification repository defining cross-language Common Library operations, security considerations are paramount.

Scope

This security policy covers: - The specification documents themselves - Test cases and examples - Documentation and metadata - Repository infrastructure

Supported Versions

Version Support Status

0.1.x

✅ Active development

Security Considerations

Specification Security

The Common Library specifications are designed with security in mind:

  1. Input Validation: All specifications include preconditions and constraints

  2. Edge Cases: Specifications document security-relevant edge cases

  3. Implementation-Defined Behavior: Security-critical behaviors are clearly marked

  4. No Network Operations: All operations are offline-first and air-gap compatible

  5. Minimal Attack Surface: Only 20 core operations with well-defined semantics

Implementation Guidance

When implementing these specifications:

  • Validate Inputs: Always validate inputs according to specification preconditions

  • Handle Edge Cases: Implement proper handling for all documented edge cases

  • Avoid Undefined Behavior: Never rely on implementation-defined or undefined behavior for security

  • Use Safe Practices: Follow language-specific security best practices

  • Test Thoroughly: Run all provided test cases plus security-specific tests

Known Security Considerations

Division and Modulo

  • Division by zero must be handled safely (error or defined behavior)

  • Integer overflow/underflow in edge cases

String Operations

  • Buffer overflow risks in substring operations (bounds checking required)

  • Unicode handling edge cases (normalization, encoding)

  • Memory allocation for string concatenation

Collection Operations

  • Resource exhaustion with large collections

  • Function evaluation side effects in map/filter/fold

  • Iterator invalidation in mutable implementations

Comparison Operations

  • Floating-point comparison precision issues

  • NaN handling in equality checks

  • Timing attacks in string comparison (for security-sensitive implementations)

Reporting a Vulnerability

We appreciate responsible disclosure of security issues.

How to Report

DO NOT open a public issue for security vulnerabilities.

Instead, report security issues via one of these channels:

  1. Email: Send details to security@[project-domain] (when available)

  2. GitHub Security Advisory: Use the “Security” tab to privately report

  3. Issue Tracker: For non-critical security concerns, open a public issue with tag security

What to Include

Your security report should include:

  • Description: Clear description of the vulnerability

  • Impact: What could an attacker achieve?

  • Affected Components: Which specifications or examples are affected?

  • Reproduction: Step-by-step reproduction instructions

  • Suggested Fix: If you have one, propose a solution

  • Disclosure Timeline: Your expected timeline for public disclosure

Response Timeline

We aim to respond according to this schedule:

  • Initial Response: Within 72 hours of report

  • Triage: Within 1 week - severity assessment and initial analysis

  • Fix Development: Depends on severity (critical: days, high: weeks, medium: months)

  • Public Disclosure: After fix is available and deployed, coordinated with reporter

Severity Levels

We assess vulnerabilities according to these severity levels:

Critical (CVSS 9.0-10.0) - Specification flaws enabling arbitrary code execution in correct implementations - Universal vulnerabilities affecting all language implementations - Response: Immediate triage, fix within days

High (CVSS 7.0-8.9) - Specification ambiguities leading to exploitable behaviors - Security-relevant undefined behavior - Response: Fix within 1-2 weeks

Medium (CVSS 4.0-6.9) - Edge cases with security implications - Documentation gaps affecting security - Response: Fix within 1-3 months

Low (CVSS 0.1-3.9) - Minor documentation issues - Theoretical vulnerabilities with no practical exploit - Response: Fix in next planned release

Security Best Practices

For Specification Authors

  • Explicitly document security-relevant behaviors

  • Provide test cases covering edge cases

  • Mark implementation-defined behaviors clearly

  • Consider attack vectors in specification design

For Implementers

  • Follow specification preconditions strictly

  • Implement all test cases

  • Add security-specific test cases

  • Use language-specific security tools (sanitizers, static analyzers)

  • Document deviations from specification

  • Use fuzzing for operation implementations

  • Perform security audits before production use

For Users

  • Use implementations from trusted sources

  • Verify test compliance before deploying

  • Report specification ambiguities that could affect security

  • Follow implementation-specific security guidance

Security Tooling

Recommended security tools for implementing aLib:

Static Analysis

  • Rust: clippy, cargo-audit

  • Ada: SPARK prover, CodePeer

  • TypeScript: tsc strict mode, ESLint security plugins

  • Elixir: Credo, Sobelow

  • Haskell: HLint, Stan

Fuzzing

  • cargo-fuzz (Rust)

  • AFL, libFuzzer (C/Ada)

  • QuickCheck (Haskell)

  • PropEr (Elixir)

Runtime Checks

  • Address Sanitizer (C/C++/Rust)

  • Memory Sanitizer

  • Undefined Behavior Sanitizer

Acknowledgments

We thank security researchers who responsibly disclose vulnerabilities. Contributors will be acknowledged in:

  • CHANGELOG.md

  • Security advisories

  • Project documentation

Legal

This security policy is provided under the same dual license as the project (MIT / Palimpsest v0.8). Security researchers acting in good faith are protected from legal action.

Updates

This security policy is versioned with the project. Last updated: 2025-11-22