From bf038352792f1c1d5fdb11ec7898f415424c3e8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin Kovacich Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 10:28:21 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] docs: add the security policy, code of conduct, and contributing guide The crate is published, dual-licensed and documented, but an outside contributor arriving at the repository had no disclosure path, no stated conduct expectations, and no description of the feature graph or the test layout. SECURITY.md states what is and is not a vulnerability in a UDS codec. SecurityAccess (0x27) is a seed/key unlock whose strength lives in the ECU's key algorithm, and the services ISO 14229-1:2020 defines for real cryptographic protection - Authentication (0x29) and SecuredDataTransmission (0x84) - are not implemented here, so a report that diagnostics are unauthenticated describes the protocol rather than a defect. Decode robustness on attacker-supplied bytes is the part that is in scope. CONTRIBUTING.md documents the layered feature graph, the three integration tests and what each one guards, and the fuzz targets. It describes the merge behaviour this repository actually has: squash and rebase are disabled, so branch commit subjects are what land on main and what release-plz reads. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) --- .github/CODEOWNERS | 3 ++ CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CONTRIBUTING.md | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SECURITY.md | 49 +++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 268 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .github/CODEOWNERS create mode 100644 CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.md create mode 100644 SECURITY.md diff --git a/.github/CODEOWNERS b/.github/CODEOWNERS new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e02adda4 --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/CODEOWNERS @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +# Default owners for everything in the repo. Review routing only — the +# main-branch ruleset does not currently require code-owner approval. +* @luminartech/luv diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a81db8a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +# Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct + +## Our Pledge + +We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our +community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body +size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender +identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, +nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual +identity and orientation. + +We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, +diverse, inclusive, and healthy community. + +## Our Standards + +Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our +community include: + +- Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people +- Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences +- Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback +- Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, + and learning from the experience +- Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall + community + +Examples of unacceptable behavior include: + +- The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of + any kind +- Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks +- Public or private harassment +- Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or email address, + without their explicit permission +- Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a + professional setting + +## Enforcement Responsibilities + +Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of +acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in +response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, +or harmful. + +Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject +comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are +not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation +decisions when appropriate. + +## Scope + +This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when +an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. +Examples of representing our community include using an official email address, +posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed +representative at an online or offline event. + +## Enforcement + +Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be +reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at +. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated +promptly and fairly. + +All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the +reporter of any incident. + +## Enforcement Guidelines + +Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining +the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct: + +### 1. Correction + +**Community Impact**: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed +unprofessional or unwelcome in the community. + +**Consequence**: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing +clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the +behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested. + +### 2. Warning + +**Community Impact**: A violation through a single incident or series of +actions. + +**Consequence**: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No +interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with +those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This +includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels +like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent +ban. + +### 3. Temporary Ban + +**Community Impact**: A serious violation of community standards, including +sustained inappropriate behavior. + +**Consequence**: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public +communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or +private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction +with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period. +Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban. + +### 4. Permanent Ban + +**Community Impact**: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community +standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an +individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals. + +**Consequence**: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the +community. + +## Attribution + +This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage], +version 2.1, available at +. + +Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by +[Mozilla's code of conduct enforcement ladder][mozilla]. + +For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see the FAQ at +. Translations are available at +. + +[homepage]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org +[mozilla]: https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..dd4afd1b --- /dev/null +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +# Contributing + +Pull requests are welcome, as are bug reports and questions in the issue +tracker. + +The crate implements ISO 14229-1:2020. The service table in +[`README.md`](README.md) tracks which services are supported, partially +supported, or not yet started — it is the place to look before adding one. + +## Building and testing + +The minimum supported Rust version is **1.85.0**, declared as `rust-version` in +`Cargo.toml`. + +`default = ["std"]`, and the feature graph is layered: `std` implies `alloc`, +and both `utoipa` and `clap` imply `std` because their derive macros expand to +`std::`, `String` and `Vec` paths. `utoipa` additionally implies `serde`, +because a `ToSchema` describes this crate's *serde* representation. `serde` is +the only optional integration usable on a bare-metal target. + +```sh +cargo test # default: std +cargo test --all-features # everything +cargo test --no-default-features # the no_std core alone +cargo test --no-default-features --features alloc,serde +``` + +The `no_std` core must keep building for a bare-metal target: + +```sh +rustup target add thumbv7em-none-eabihf +cargo check --no-default-features --target thumbv7em-none-eabihf +``` + +The integration tests each guard a different property: + +- `tests/spec_conformance.rs` — encodings against ISO 14229-1:2020. +- `tests/public_api.rs` — the public surface, so that additions to it are + deliberate rather than incidental. +- `tests/openapi_schema.rs` — the `utoipa` schemas, which must describe the + serde representation rather than the Rust shape. + +## Wire-format changes + +Several types serialize as a single protocol byte rather than as their Rust +shape. A round-trip test written against the crate's own output passes whenever +`encode` and `decode` share the same misreading, so a change that alters the +bytes on the wire should be pinned by a case in `tests/spec_conformance.rs` +with the specification's bytes written out literally. + +The fuzz targets in `fuzz/fuzz_targets/` cover request decoding, response +decoding, and round-tripping. A decode bug is best reported as a fuzz input. + +## Commits and pull requests + +Commit subjects follow [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/) +(`feat:`, `fix:`, `docs:`, `build:`, `chore:`, with a `!` for a breaking +change), because the changelog is organized around them. Say what changed and +why in the body. + +This repository merges with **merge commits** — squash and rebase are both +disabled — so the subjects of the commits on your branch are what land on +`main`, and those are what release-plz reads to build the changelog and compute +the next version. Keep them clean; a tidy PR title does not stand in for them +here. CI additionally lints the PR title for conventional-commit grammar. + +Installing the hooks checks the same grammar locally, before the push rather +than in CI: + +```sh +pre-commit install --install-hooks +``` + +## Releases + +[release-plz](https://release-plz.dev) owns versioning, the changelog, tags, +GitHub releases, and the crates.io publish. There is no release workflow in +this repository and no version to bump by hand: a push to `main` maintains an +open release PR, and merging that PR publishes. `release-plz.toml` holds the +configuration, shared with `simple_doip` and `automotive_wire_codec`. + +## Continuous integration + +CI is a thin caller for the org-wide reusable workflow in +[`luminartech/rust_workflow`](https://github.com/luminartech/rust_workflow); +`.github/workflows/main.yml` owns only the triggers and this crate's +configuration. Changes to the jobs themselves belong in that repository. diff --git a/SECURITY.md b/SECURITY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e18d4adc --- /dev/null +++ b/SECURITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +# Security policy + +## Reporting a vulnerability + +Report security issues through GitHub's private vulnerability reporting: open +the [Security tab](https://github.com/luminartech/uds_protocol/security) and +choose **Report a vulnerability**. That opens a private advisory visible only +to the maintainers. + +Please do not open a public issue for a security report. + +A report is most useful with the crate version, the feature set enabled, and a +byte sequence or test case that reproduces the behavior. + +## Supported versions + +This crate is pre-1.0. Fixes land on the latest published version; there are no +maintained release branches. + +## Scope + +`uds_protocol` encodes and decodes ISO 14229-1:2020 messages. It is a codec: it +does not own a transport, a session, or a key. Three properties of UDS matter +when assessing a report, because they are the specification's design rather +than defects in this crate: + +- **UDS carries no transport security.** ISO 14229 defines a service layer. + Confidentiality and integrity, where they exist at all, belong to the + transport underneath it — DoIP, ISO-TP over CAN — and to the layers above. + A UDS message read off the wire in the clear is the protocol working as + specified. +- **`SecurityAccess` (0x27) is not authentication.** It is a seed/key unlock + whose strength lives entirely in the ECU's key algorithm, which this crate + neither generates nor validates — it encodes and decodes the exchange. The + services ISO 14229-1:2020 defines for actual cryptographic protection, + `Authentication` (0x29) and `SecuredDataTransmission` (0x84), are **not + implemented here**. A system built on this crate has no authenticated + diagnostic channel unless it provides one itself. +- **Several supported services write to the ECU by design.** + `RequestDownload` (0x34), `RequestUpload` (0x35), `TransferData` (0x36) and + `RequestFileTransfer` (0x38) exist to move memory and files. That this crate + will encode and decode them is the point; deciding who may send them is the + ECU's responsibility, not the codec's. + +What is in scope: anything that makes the crate misbehave on attacker-supplied +bytes — a panic, an out-of-bounds read, an unbounded allocation, a decode that +accepts a frame it should reject, or a hang reachable from the wire. The fuzz +targets in `fuzz/fuzz_targets/` cover request decoding, response decoding and +round-tripping; a reproducer expressed as a fuzz input is ideal.