Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature: Check custom CII Best Practices URL #4315

Open
jmgate opened this issue Aug 27, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Feature: Check custom CII Best Practices URL #4315

jmgate opened this issue Aug 27, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
kind/enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jmgate
Copy link

jmgate commented Aug 27, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I work in an environment where the majority of the software project cannot be open source due to a variety of security and need-to-know requirements. However, we'd like to take advantage of some of the great tools made available by the OpenSSF, so we're looking at standing up internal instances of the Best Practices Badge App and securityscorecards.dev. Once we have the internal Badge App stood up, it would be great if we could just point scorecard to it in some way.

Describe the solution you'd like
I'm flexible on implementation details, and trust whatever you think is best. Some potential solutions that come to mind:

  1. Environment variable: E.g., CII_BEST_PRACTICES_URL=https://bestpractices.company.com scorecard --repo internal-gitlab.company.com/{owner}/{repo}.
  2. Command line option: E.g., scorecard --repo internal-gitlab.company.com/{owner}/{repo} --cii-best-practices-url https://bestpractices.company.com.

Describe alternatives you've considered
If this enhancement is undesirable, we can always fork this project internally and replace all instances of https://www.bestpractices.dev with our internal Badge App URL. Looks like that would only need to happen in

  • clients/cii_http_client.go
  • cron/internal/cii/main.go

plus updating some links in a few Markdown and YAML files if we want to be consistent across the board.

Additional context
N/A

@jmgate jmgate added the kind/enhancement New feature or request label Aug 27, 2024
@spencerschrock
Copy link
Contributor

Just to clarify:
Your internal environment has access to the public internet, but you can't register your project with https://www.bestpractices.dev because the projects are not open source?

I ask because there are other checks with clients that attempt to reach out to third party services. Part of Fuzzing checks for OSS-Fuzz integration data, and the Vulnerabilities references osv.dev.

@spencerschrock
Copy link
Contributor

If you're only hosting an internal instance to satisfy the CII-Best-Practices score, you could also consider not running that check and then it won't affect your score.

If you already planned on hosting an internal instance of the best practices app and just want Scorecard to connect to it, either of your suggestions are feasible. We have gone with option 1 in the past for GHES support for example.

@jmgate
Copy link
Author

jmgate commented Aug 28, 2024

Thanks for the quick response, @spencerschrock. Hopefully this can clarify things:

Your internal environment has access to the public internet, but you can't register your project with https://www.bestpractices.dev/ because the projects are not open source?

That's correct.

If you already planned on hosting an internal instance of the best practices app and just want Scorecard to connect to it…

Yes, this is what we'd like to do.

you could also consider not running that check…

Understood. There are some checks we intend to disable internally (anything GitHub-specific, as we use self-managed GitLab inside), but this is a case where we'd like the check to be there, but to look to an internal URL.

there are other checks with clients that attempt to reach out to third party services…

I'll have to look closer at all the checks to which ones we might want to disable or modify. I'm still just in the project proposal stage and trying to get a better idea of the scope for any changes we'd want/need to make to stand these tools up internally.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants