diff --git a/.github/GOVERNANCE.md b/.github/GOVERNANCE.md deleted file mode 100644 index 2ee4f53..0000000 --- a/.github/GOVERNANCE.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,53 +0,0 @@ - -# Governance - -`outpost` is a small, single-maintainer homelab project. Governance is -deliberately lightweight, but two things are **policy**, not just habit. - -## Roles - -- **Maintainer** — sole decision-maker; see [MAINTAINERS.md](MAINTAINERS.md). -- **Contributors** — anyone opening issues/PRs. Welcome, but changes to the - surfaces below require explicit maintainer sign-off. - -## Decision process - -Day-to-day: lazy consensus on PRs. The maintainer merges. Linear history; -squash or rebase only (no merge commits). - -## Policy 1 — base images are maintainer-gated - -The pinned container base lives in [`/images.lock`](../images.lock) as a -**multi-arch manifest-list digest** (the reproducible base the appliance boots -from). It is changed **only** by a deliberate maintainer action: - -- Detection is automated and **report-only**: `sh bin/bump.sh --check` - (exit `10` = an upgrade is available) and `sh bin/bump.sh --verify` - (assert the current pin still matches source — supply-chain drift check). -- Application is a separate, explicit choice: `sh bin/bump.sh --apply`, which - re-resolves the digest from source and repins **only after the maintainer - confirms**. The resulting `images.lock` change is reviewed and committed like - any other diff. - -A weekly **canary** (`bin/canary.sh`, installed as a crond/systemd job on owned -compute — never GitHub Actions) runs exactly those report-only modes and pings -the maintainer when there is something to decide. It cannot apply anything. - -Rationale: detection without auto-application. The tool never silently moves the -base; a human makes the upgrade call. Never pin or boot a floating tag — -`bin/up.sh` refuses to launch anything not pinned to a `@sha256:` digest. - -## Policy 2 — surface-changing edits need review - -Changes to `host/nftables.nft`, `host/cups/`, or anything that alters the box's -exposed network surface get extra scrutiny (this is, after all, a piece of -network infrastructure). Default-deny stays default-deny. - -## Security - -Report security issues per [SECURITY.md](SECURITY.md) (or the org-level policy -in `hyperpolymath/.github`) — not in public issues. - -## Changing this document - -Amendments are a maintainer decision, recorded in git history. diff --git a/.github/dependabot.yml b/.github/dependabot.yml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4d9ae2f --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/dependabot.yml @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: MPL-2.0 +# Dependabot configuration for RSR-compliant repositories +# Covers common ecosystems - remove unused ones for your project + +version: 2 +updates: + # GitHub Actions - always include + - package-ecosystem: "github-actions" + directory: "/" + schedule: + interval: "weekly" + groups: + actions: + patterns: + - "*" + + # Rust/Cargo + - package-ecosystem: "cargo" + directory: "/" + schedule: + interval: "weekly" + # `open-pull-requests-limit: 0` suppresses routine version-update PRs + # while leaving Dependabot SECURITY PRs flowing. The previous + # `ignore: "*" patch` rule also silenced security PRs under GitHub\'s + # current Dependabot behaviour. See rsr-template-repo commit 78b050e + # and 007-lang/audits/audit-dependabot-automation-gap-2026-04-17.md. + open-pull-requests-limit: 0 + + # Elixir/Mix + - package-ecosystem: "mix" + directory: "/" + schedule: + interval: "weekly" + + # Node.js/npm + - package-ecosystem: "npm" + directory: "/" + schedule: + interval: "weekly" + + # Python/pip + - package-ecosystem: "pip" + directory: "/" + schedule: + interval: "weekly" + + # Nix flakes + - package-ecosystem: "nix" + directory: "/" + schedule: + interval: "weekly" diff --git a/.github/workflows/pages.yml b/.github/workflows/pages.yml index c78489a..0273437 100755 --- a/.github/workflows/pages.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/pages.yml @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ on: branches: [main, master] workflow_dispatch: permissions: + actions: read contents: read pages: write id-token: write diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8267cd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md @@ -0,0 +1,327 @@ +# Code of Conduct + + + +## Our Pledge + +We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in Squisher Corpus 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, colour, 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. + +We recognise that a thriving open source community requires **psychological safety** — an environment where people can contribute, ask questions, make mistakes, and learn without fear of ridicule or retaliation. + +--- + +## Our Standards + +### Expected Behaviour + +The following behaviours contribute to a positive environment: + +**Communication** +- Using welcoming and inclusive language +- Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences +- Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback +- Assuming good intent while addressing impact +- Communicating clearly and patiently, especially with newcomers + +**Collaboration** +- Focusing on what is best for the community +- Showing empathy and kindness toward other community members +- Being collaborative rather than competitive +- Mentoring and supporting less experienced contributors +- Celebrating others' contributions and successes + +**Professionalism** +- Accepting responsibility and apologising to those affected by our mistakes +- Learning from the experience and avoiding repetition +- Respecting others' time and attention +- Staying on topic in project spaces +- Following project guidelines and conventions + +**Accessibility** +- Using plain language and avoiding unnecessary jargon +- Providing alt text for images and transcripts for audio/video +- Being patient with those using assistive technologies +- Accommodating different communication styles and needs +- Recognising that not everyone communicates the same way + +### Unacceptable Behaviour + +The following behaviours are considered harassment and are unacceptable: + +**Harassment** +- The use of sexualised 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 +- Deliberate intimidation, stalking, or following (online or in-person) +- Unwelcome physical contact or simulated physical contact (e.g., emoji) +- Sustained disruption of talks, events, or online discussions + +**Discrimination** +- Discriminatory jokes and language +- Posting or threatening to post others' personally identifying information ("doxing") +- Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour +- Microaggressions — subtle, often unintentional, discriminatory comments or actions + +**Professional Misconduct** +- Publishing others' private information without explicit permission +- Misrepresenting affiliation or contributions +- Plagiarism or claiming credit for others' work +- Retaliating against anyone who reports a Code of Conduct violation +- Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting + +### Grey Areas + +Some situations require judgement. When uncertain: + +- **Intent vs Impact**: Good intentions do not excuse harmful impact. Focus on making things right. +- **Power Dynamics**: Those with more power (maintainers, employers, experienced contributors) must be especially mindful of their impact. +- **Cultural Differences**: What's acceptable varies by culture. When in doubt, err on the side of caution and ask. +- **Humour**: Jokes at others' expense are rarely funny to everyone. Punch up, not down. + +--- + +## Scope + +This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, including: + +**Online Spaces** +- Repository discussions, issues, and pull/merge requests +- Project chat channels (Matrix, Discord, Slack, IRC) +- Mailing lists and forums +- Social media when representing the project +- Video calls and virtual meetings + +**In-Person Spaces** +- Conferences, meetups, and events +- Workshops and training sessions +- Any gathering where you represent the project + +**Representation** +This Code of Conduct also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples include: + +- Using an official project email address +- Posting via an official social media account +- Acting as an appointed representative at an event +- Speaking on behalf of the project + +--- + +## Enforcement + +### Reporting + +If you experience or witness unacceptable behaviour, or have any other concerns, please report it as soon as possible. + +**How to Report** + +| Method | Details | Best For | +|--------|---------|----------| +| **Email** | j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk | Detailed reports, sensitive matters | +| **Private Message** | Contact any maintainer directly | Quick questions, minor issues | +| **Anonymous Form** | [Link to form if available] | When you need anonymity | + +**What to Include** + +- Your contact information (unless anonymous) +- Names/usernames of those involved +- Description of what happened +- When and where it occurred +- Any witnesses +- Any supporting evidence (screenshots, links) +- How you would like us to respond (if you have a preference) + +**What Happens Next** + +1. You will receive acknowledgment within **48 hours** +2. The maintainers will review the report +3. We may ask for additional information +4. We will determine appropriate action +5. We will inform you of the outcome (respecting others' privacy) + +### Confidentiality + +All reports will be handled with discretion: + +- Reporter identity is protected by default +- Details are shared only with those who need to know +- We will ask before naming you in any communication +- Anonymous reports are accepted and investigated + +### Conflicts of Interest + +If a maintainers member is involved in an incident: + +- They will recuse themselves from the process +- Another maintainer or external party will handle the report +- We will disclose any potential conflicts + +--- + +## Enforcement Guidelines + +The maintainers will follow these guidelines in determining consequences: + +### 1. Correction + +**Community Impact**: Use of inappropriate language or other behaviour deemed unprofessional or unwelcome. + +**Consequence**: A private, written warning providing clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the behaviour was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested. + +**Duration**: Immediate + +### 2. Warning + +**Community Impact**: A violation through a single incident or series of actions. + +**Consequence**: A warning with consequences for continued behaviour. No interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period. 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. + +**Duration**: 1-4 weeks + +### 3. Temporary Ban + +**Community Impact**: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behaviour. + +**Consequence**: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period. 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. + +**Duration**: 1-6 months + +### 4. Permanent Ban + +**Community Impact**: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behaviour, 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. + +**Duration**: Permanent (with appeal rights after 12 months) + +### Enforcement Across Perimeters + +For contributors with elevated access (Perimeter 2 or 1): + +| Level | Additional Consequence | +|-------|----------------------| +| Correction | Noted in contributor record | +| Warning | Access privileges may be temporarily reduced | +| Temporary Ban | Access reduced to Perimeter 3 for ban duration | +| Permanent Ban | All access revoked | + +--- + +## Appeals + +If you believe an enforcement decision was made in error: + +1. **Wait 7 days** after the decision (cooling-off period) +2. **Email** j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk with subject line "Appeal: [Original Report ID]" +3. **Explain** why you believe the decision should be reconsidered +4. **Provide** any new information not previously available + +**Appeals Process** + +- Appeals are reviewed by a different maintainers member than the original +- You will receive a response within 14 days +- The appeals decision is final +- You may only appeal once per incident + +**Grounds for Appeal** + +- Procedural errors in the original investigation +- New evidence not previously available +- Disproportionate response to the violation +- Misunderstanding of facts + +--- + +## Supporting Those Who Report + +We are committed to supporting those who report violations: + +**We Will** +- Believe and take all reports seriously +- Respect your privacy and confidentiality preferences +- Keep you informed of progress (if you wish) +- Take steps to protect you from retaliation +- Provide resources if you need support + +**We Will Not** +- Require you to confront the person directly +- Dismiss reports without investigation +- Reveal your identity without consent +- Tolerate retaliation against reporters +- Rush you to make decisions + +--- + +## Prevention + +Beyond enforcement, we actively work to prevent issues: + +**Onboarding** +- All contributors are expected to read this Code of Conduct +- Perimeter 2 applicants must confirm they've read and understood it +- Maintainers receive additional training on enforcement + +**Culture** +- We model the behaviour we expect +- We intervene early when we see potential issues +- We thank people for positive contributions +- We create opportunities for diverse voices + +**Review** +- This Code of Conduct is reviewed annually +- Community feedback is welcomed +- Changes are communicated clearly + +--- + +## Acknowledgments + +This Code of Conduct is adapted from: + +- [Contributor Covenant](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/), version 2.1 +- [Django Code of Conduct](https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/) +- [Rust Code of Conduct](https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct) +- [Python Community Code of Conduct](https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/) + +We thank these communities for their leadership in creating welcoming spaces. + +--- + +## Questions? + +If you have questions about this Code of Conduct: + +- Open a [Discussion](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/squisher-corpus/discussions) (for general questions) +- Email j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk (for private questions) +- Contact any maintainer directly + +--- + +## Summary + +**Be kind. Be respectful. Be collaborative.** + +We're all here because we care about this project. Let's make it a place where everyone can do their best work. + +--- + +Last updated: 2026 · Based on Contributor Covenant 2.1 diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3229d54 --- /dev/null +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +# Clone the repository +git clone https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost.git +cd network-outpost + +# Using Nix (recommended for reproducibility) +nix develop + +# Or using toolbox/distrobox +toolbox create network-outpost-dev +toolbox enter network-outpost-dev +# Install dependencies manually + +# Verify setup +just check # or: cargo check / mix compile / etc. +just test # Run test suite +``` + +### Repository Structure +``` +network-outpost/ +├── src/ # Source code (Perimeter 1-2) +├── lib/ # Library code (Perimeter 1-2) +├── extensions/ # Extensions (Perimeter 2) +├── plugins/ # Plugins (Perimeter 2) +├── tools/ # Tooling (Perimeter 2) +├── docs/ # Documentation (Perimeter 3) +│ ├── architecture/ # ADRs, specs (Perimeter 2) +│ └── proposals/ # RFCs (Perimeter 3) +├── examples/ # Examples (Perimeter 3) +├── spec/ # Spec tests (Perimeter 3) +├── tests/ # Test suite (Perimeter 2-3) +├── .well-known/ # Protocol files (Perimeter 1-3) +├── .github/ # GitHub config (Perimeter 1) +│ ├── ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ +│ └── workflows/ +├── CHANGELOG.md +├── CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md +├── CONTRIBUTING.md # This file +├── GOVERNANCE.md +├── LICENSE +├── MAINTAINERS.md +├── README.adoc +├── SECURITY.md +├── flake.nix # Nix flake (Perimeter 1) +└── Justfile # Task runner (Perimeter 1) +``` + +--- + +## How to Contribute + +### Reporting Bugs + +**Before reporting**: +1. Search existing issues +2. Check if it's already fixed in `main` +3. Determine which perimeter the bug affects + +**When reporting**: + +Use the [bug report template](.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md) and include: + +- Clear, descriptive title +- Environment details (OS, versions, toolchain) +- Steps to reproduce +- Expected vs actual behaviour +- Logs, screenshots, or minimal reproduction + +### Suggesting Features + +**Before suggesting**: +1. Check the [roadmap](ROADMAP.md) if available +2. Search existing issues and discussions +3. Consider which perimeter the feature belongs to + +**When suggesting**: + +Use the [feature request template](.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md) and include: + +- Problem statement (what pain point does this solve?) +- Proposed solution +- Alternatives considered +- Which perimeter this affects + +### Your First Contribution + +Look for issues labelled: + +- [`good first issue`](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/labels/good%20first%20issue) — Simple Perimeter 3 tasks +- [`help wanted`](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/labels/help%20wanted) — Community help needed +- [`documentation`](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/labels/documentation) — Docs improvements +- [`perimeter-3`](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/labels/perimeter-3) — Community sandbox scope + +--- + +## Development Workflow + +### Branch Naming +``` +docs/short-description # Documentation (P3) +test/what-added # Test additions (P3) +feat/short-description # New features (P2) +fix/issue-number-description # Bug fixes (P2) +refactor/what-changed # Code improvements (P2) +security/what-fixed # Security fixes (P1-2) +``` + +### Commit Messages + +We follow [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/): +``` +(): + +[optional body] + +[optional footer] diff --git a/SECURITY.md b/SECURITY.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a96a34c --- /dev/null +++ b/SECURITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,388 @@ +# Security Policy + +We take security seriously. We appreciate your efforts to responsibly disclose vulnerabilities and will make every effort to acknowledge your contributions. + +## Table of Contents + +- [Reporting a Vulnerability](#reporting-a-vulnerability) +- [What to Include](#what-to-include) +- [Response Timeline](#response-timeline) +- [Disclosure Policy](#disclosure-policy) +- [Scope](#scope) +- [Safe Harbour](#safe-harbour) +- [Recognition](#recognition) +- [Security Updates](#security-updates) +- [Security Best Practices](#security-best-practices) + +--- + +## Reporting a Vulnerability + +### Preferred Method: GitHub Security Advisories + +The preferred method for reporting security vulnerabilities is through GitHub's Security Advisory feature: + +1. Navigate to [Report a Vulnerability](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/security/advisories/new) +2. Click **"Report a vulnerability"** +3. Complete the form with as much detail as possible +4. Submit — we'll receive a private notification + +This method ensures: + +- End-to-end encryption of your report +- Private discussion space for collaboration +- Coordinated disclosure tooling +- Automatic credit when the advisory is published + +### Alternative: Encrypted Email + +If you cannot use GitHub Security Advisories, you may email us directly: + +| | | +|---|---| +| **Email** | j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk | +| **PGP Key** | [Download Public Key](https://github.com/hyperpolymath.gpg) | +| **Fingerprint** | `TBD` | + +```bash +# Import our PGP key +curl -sSL https://github.com/hyperpolymath.gpg | gpg --import + +# Verify fingerprint +gpg --fingerprint j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk + +# Encrypt your report +gpg --armor --encrypt --recipient j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk report.txt +``` + +> **⚠️ Important:** Do not report security vulnerabilities through public GitHub issues, pull requests, discussions, or social media. + +--- + +## What to Include + +A good vulnerability report helps us understand and reproduce the issue quickly. + +### Required Information + +- **Description**: Clear explanation of the vulnerability +- **Impact**: What an attacker could achieve (confidentiality, integrity, availability) +- **Affected versions**: Which versions/commits are affected +- **Reproduction steps**: Detailed steps to reproduce the issue + +### Helpful Additional Information + +- **Proof of concept**: Code, scripts, or screenshots demonstrating the vulnerability +- **Attack scenario**: Realistic attack scenario showing exploitability +- **CVSS score**: Your assessment of severity (use [CVSS 3.1 Calculator](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1)) +- **CWE ID**: Common Weakness Enumeration identifier if known +- **Suggested fix**: If you have ideas for remediation +- **References**: Links to related vulnerabilities, research, or advisories + +### Example Report Structure + +```markdown +## Summary +[One-sentence description of the vulnerability] + +## Vulnerability Type +[e.g., SQL Injection, XSS, SSRF, Path Traversal, etc.] + +## Affected Component +[File path, function name, API endpoint, etc.] + +## Affected Versions +[Version range or specific commits] + +## Severity Assessment +- CVSS 3.1 Score: [X.X] +- CVSS Vector: [CVSS:3.1/AV:X/AC:X/PR:X/UI:X/S:X/C:X/I:X/A:X] + +## Description +[Detailed technical description] + +## Steps to Reproduce +1. [First step] +2. [Second step] +3. [...] + +## Proof of Concept +[Code, curl commands, screenshots, etc.] + +## Impact +[What can an attacker achieve?] + +## Suggested Remediation +[Optional: your ideas for fixing] + +## References +[Links to related issues, CVEs, research] +``` + +--- + +## Response Timeline + +We commit to the following response times: + +| Stage | Timeframe | Description | +|-------|-----------|-------------| +| **Initial Response** | 48 hours | We acknowledge receipt and confirm we're investigating | +| **Triage** | 7 days | We assess severity, confirm the vulnerability, and estimate timeline | +| **Status Update** | Every 7 days | Regular updates on remediation progress | +| **Resolution** | 90 days | Target for fix development and release (complex issues may take longer) | +| **Disclosure** | 90 days | Public disclosure after fix is available (coordinated with you) | + +> **Note:** These are targets, not guarantees. Complex vulnerabilities may require more time. We'll communicate openly about any delays. + +--- + +## Disclosure Policy + +We follow **coordinated disclosure** (also known as responsible disclosure): + +1. **You report** the vulnerability privately +2. **We acknowledge** and begin investigation +3. **We develop** a fix and prepare a release +4. **We coordinate** disclosure timing with you +5. **We publish** security advisory and fix simultaneously +6. **You may publish** your research after disclosure + +### Our Commitments + +- We will not take legal action against researchers who follow this policy +- We will work with you to understand and resolve the issue +- We will credit you in the security advisory (unless you prefer anonymity) +- We will notify you before public disclosure +- We will publish advisories with sufficient detail for users to assess risk + +### Your Commitments + +- Report vulnerabilities promptly after discovery +- Give us reasonable time to address the issue before disclosure +- Do not access, modify, or delete data beyond what's necessary to demonstrate the vulnerability +- Do not degrade service availability (no DoS testing on production) +- Do not share vulnerability details with others until coordinated disclosure + +### Disclosure Timeline + +``` +Day 0 You report vulnerability +Day 1-2 We acknowledge receipt +Day 7 We confirm vulnerability and share initial assessment +Day 7-90 We develop and test fix +Day 90 Coordinated public disclosure + (earlier if fix is ready; later by mutual agreement) +``` + +If we cannot reach agreement on disclosure timing, we default to 90 days from your initial report. + +--- + +## Scope + +### In Scope ✅ + +The following are within scope for security research: + +- This repository (`hyperpolymath/network-outpost`) and all its code +- Official releases and packages published from this repository +- Documentation that could lead to security issues +- Build and deployment configurations in this repository +- Dependencies (report here, we'll coordinate with upstream) + +### Out of Scope ❌ + +The following are **not** in scope: + +- Third-party services we integrate with (report directly to them) +- Social engineering attacks against maintainers +- Physical security +- Denial of service attacks against production infrastructure +- Spam, phishing, or other non-technical attacks +- Issues already reported or publicly known +- Theoretical vulnerabilities without proof of concept + +### Qualifying Vulnerabilities + +We're particularly interested in: + +- Remote code execution +- SQL injection, command injection, code injection +- Authentication/authorisation bypass +- Cross-site scripting (XSS) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) +- Server-side request forgery (SSRF) +- Path traversal / local file inclusion +- Information disclosure (credentials, PII, secrets) +- Cryptographic weaknesses +- Deserialisation vulnerabilities +- Memory safety issues (buffer overflows, use-after-free, etc.) +- Supply chain vulnerabilities (dependency confusion, etc.) +- Significant logic flaws + +### Non-Qualifying Issues + +The following generally do not qualify as security vulnerabilities: + +- Missing security headers on non-sensitive pages +- Clickjacking on pages without sensitive actions +- Self-XSS (requires victim to paste code) +- Missing rate limiting (unless it enables a specific attack) +- Username/email enumeration (unless high-risk context) +- Missing cookie flags on non-sensitive cookies +- Software version disclosure +- Verbose error messages (unless exposing secrets) +- Best practice deviations without demonstrable impact + +--- + +## Safe Harbour + +We support security research conducted in good faith. + +### Our Promise + +If you conduct security research in accordance with this policy: + +- ✅ We will not initiate legal action against you +- ✅ We will not report your activity to law enforcement +- ✅ We will work with you in good faith to resolve issues +- ✅ We consider your research authorised under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), UK Computer Misuse Act, and similar laws +- ✅ We waive any potential claim against you for circumvention of security controls + +### Good Faith Requirements + +To qualify for safe harbour, you must: + +- Comply with this security policy +- Report vulnerabilities promptly +- Avoid privacy violations (do not access others' data) +- Avoid service degradation (no destructive testing) +- Not exploit vulnerabilities beyond proof-of-concept +- Not use vulnerabilities for profit (beyond bug bounties where offered) + +> **⚠️ Important:** This safe harbour does not extend to third-party systems. Always check their policies before testing. + +--- + +## Recognition + +We believe in recognising security researchers who help us improve. + +### Hall of Fame + +Researchers who report valid vulnerabilities will be acknowledged in our [Security Acknowledgments](SECURITY-ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.md) (unless they prefer anonymity). + +Recognition includes: + +- Your name (or chosen alias) +- Link to your website/profile (optional) +- Brief description of the vulnerability class +- Date of report + +### What We Offer + +- ✅ Public credit in security advisories +- ✅ Acknowledgment in release notes +- ✅ Entry in our Hall of Fame +- ✅ Reference/recommendation letter upon request (for significant findings) + +### What We Don't Currently Offer + +- ❌ Monetary bug bounties +- ❌ Hardware or swag +- ❌ Paid security research contracts + +> **Note:** We're a community project with limited resources. Your contributions help everyone who uses this software. + +--- + +## Security Updates + +### Receiving Updates + +To stay informed about security updates: + +- **Watch this repository**: Click "Watch" → "Custom" → Select "Security alerts" +- **GitHub Security Advisories**: Published at [Security Advisories](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/security/advisories) +- **Release notes**: Security fixes noted in [CHANGELOG](CHANGELOG.md) + +### Update Policy + +| Severity | Response | +|----------|----------| +| **Critical/High** | Patch release as soon as fix is ready | +| **Medium** | Included in next scheduled release (or earlier) | +| **Low** | Included in next scheduled release | + +### Supported Versions + + + +| Version | Supported | Notes | +|---------|-----------|-------| +| `main` branch | ✅ Yes | Latest development | +| Latest release | ✅ Yes | Current stable | +| Previous minor release | ✅ Yes | Security fixes backported | +| Older versions | ❌ No | Please upgrade | + +--- + +## Security Best Practices + +When using Network Outpost, we recommend: + +### General + +- Keep dependencies up to date +- Use the latest stable release +- Subscribe to security notifications +- Review configuration against security documentation +- Follow principle of least privilege + +### For Contributors + +- Never commit secrets, credentials, or API keys +- Use signed commits (`git config commit.gpgsign true`) +- Review dependencies before adding them +- Run security linters locally before pushing +- Report any concerns about existing code + +--- + +## Additional Resources + +- [Our PGP Public Key](https://github.com/hyperpolymath.gpg) +- [Security Advisories](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/security/advisories) +- [Changelog](CHANGELOG.md) +- [Contributing Guidelines](CONTRIBUTING.md) +- [CVE Database](https://cve.mitre.org/) +- [CVSS Calculator](https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1) + +--- + +## Contact + +| Purpose | Contact | +|---------|---------| +| **Security issues** | [Report via GitHub](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/security/advisories/new) or j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk | +| **General questions** | [GitHub Discussions](https://github.com/hyperpolymath/network-outpost/discussions) | +| **Other enquiries** | See [README](README.md) for contact information | + +--- + +## Policy Changes + +This security policy may be updated from time to time. Significant changes will be: + +- Committed to this repository with a clear commit message +- Noted in the changelog +- Announced via GitHub Discussions (for major changes) + +--- + +*Thank you for helping keep Network Outpost and its users safe.* 🛡️ + +--- + +Last updated: 2026 · Policy version: 1.0.0