Mojaloop OpenSSF FLOSS "Passing" Level Evaluation

[gibaros]

Goal:

As a <stakeholder|persona>

I want to

so that

Acceptance Criteria:

• Evaluate OpenSSF FLOSS Passing
• Provide URL or required evidence for "Passing" level items
• Create issues with gaps identified

Complexity: <High|Medium|Low> > A short comment to remind the reason for the rating

Uncertainty: <High|Medium|Low> > A short comment to remind the reason for the rating

---

Tasks:

• TBD [ @? ]

Checked	Criteria	Evidence(URL, etc.)	Comments
	Passing
	Basics
	Basic project website content
✅	1. The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good] Details:This MUST be in language that potential users can understand (e.g., it uses minimal jargon).	https://mojaloop.io/
✅	2. The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. [interact] Details: Typically hosted on GitHub issues/pull requests.	https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/contributing/contributors-guide.html#where-do-i-send-bugs-questions-and-feedback https://github.com/mojaloop/mojaloop/blob/main/contribute/Reporting-Bugs.md
✅	3. The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) {Met URL} [contribution] Details:We presume that projects on GitHub use issues and pull requests unless otherwise noted. This information can be short, e.g., stating that the project uses pull requests, an issue tracker, or posts to a mailing list (which one?) Rationale:Contributors need to understand not only how to contribute, but also the overall contribution process, so that they'll understand how their work could be incorporated and what the expectations are after the initial submission. Note that criterion "interact" (listed earlier) requires that the contribution information be on the project website.	https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/contributing/contributors-guide.html https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/standards/creating-new-features.html
✅	4. The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). {Met URL} [contribution_requirements]	https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/contributing/contributors-guide.html https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/standards/creating-new-features.html
	FLOSS license
	5. The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license] Details:FLOSS is software released in a way that meets the Open Source Definition or Free Software Definition. Examples of such licenses include the CC0, MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). For our purposes, this means that the license MUST be: an approved license by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), or a free license as approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), or a free license acceptable to Debian main, or a "good" license according to Fedora. The software MAY also be licensed other ways (e.g., "GPLv2 or proprietary" is acceptable).Rationale:These criteria are designed for FLOSS projects, so we need to ensure that they're only used where they apply. Some projects may be mistakenly considered FLOSS even though they are not (e.g., they might not have any license, in which case the defaults of the country's legal system apply, or they might use a non-FLOSS license). We've added "produced by the project" as a clarification - many projects use non-FLOSS software/services in the process of creating software, or depend on them to run, and that is allowed.	https://github.com/mojaloop/documentation/blob/master/LICENSE.md
✅	6. It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). [floss_license_osi] Details:The OSI uses a rigorous approval process to determine which licenses are OSS. Rationale:Unusual licenses can cause long-term problems for FLOSS projects and are more difficult for tools to handle. That said, there are FLOSS licenses that are not OSI-approved, e.g., the CC0 license is used by many projects but is not OSI-approved at the time of this writing. We expect that more advanced badges would set a higher bar (e.g., that it must be released under an OSI-approved license).
✅	7. The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. {Met URL} [license_location] Details:One convention is posting the license as a top-level file named LICENSE or COPYING, which MAY be followed by an extension such as ".txt" or ".md". An alternative convention is to have a directory named LICENSES containing license file(s); these files are typically named as their SPDX license identifier followed by an appropriate file extension, as described in the REUSE Specification. Note that this criterion is only a requirement on the source repository. You do NOT need to include the license file when generating something from the source code (such as an executable, package, or container). For example, when generating an R package for the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), follow standard CRAN practice: if the license is a standard license, use the standard short license specification (to avoid installing yet another copy of the text) and list the LICENSE file in an exclusion file such as .Rbuildignore. Similarly, when creating a Debian package, you may put a link in the copyright file to the license text in /usr/share/common-licenses, and exclude the license file from the created package (e.g., by deleting the file after calling dh_auto_install). We encourage including machine-readable license information in generated formats where practical. Rationale:The goal is to make the license very clear and connected with the project results it applies to. It is a good idea to also make the license clear on the project website, but there isn't a widely-accepted way to do that today.	https://github.com/mojaloop/project/blob/master/LICENSE.md
	Documentation
✅	8. The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. {N/A justification} [documentation_basics] Details:This documentation must be in some media (such as text or video) that includes: how to install it, how to start it, how to use it (possibly with a tutorial using examples), and how to use it securely (e.g., what to do and what not to do) if that is an appropriate topic for the software. The security documentation need not be long. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A). Rationale:Potential users need documentation so that they can learn how to use the software. This documentation could be provided via the project website or repository, or even via hyperlink to some external information, so we do not specify exactly where this information is.	https://docs.mojaloop.io/adoption/ https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/ https://docs.mojaloop.io/product/ https://docs.mojaloop.io/technical/ https://docs.mojaloop.io/technical/technical/deployment-guide/ https://github.com/mojaloop/iacv2-docs
✅	9. The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. {N/A justification} [documentation_interface] Details:The documentation of an external interface explains to an end-user or developer how to use it. This would include its application program interface (API) if the software has one. If it is a library, document the major classes/types and methods/functions that can be called. If it is a web application, define its URL interface (often its REST interface). If it is a command-line interface, document the parameters and options it supports. In many cases it's best if most of this documentation is automatically generated, so that this documentation stays synchronized with the software as it changes, but this isn't required. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. Documentation MAY be automatically generated (where practical this is often the best way to do so). Documentation of a REST interface may be generated using Swagger/OpenAPI. Code interface documentation MAY be generated using tools such as JSDoc (JavaScript), ESDoc (JavaScript), pydoc (Python), devtools (R), pkgdown (R), and Doxygen (many). Merely having comments in implementation code is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion; there needs to be an easy way to see the information without reading through all the source code. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A).	https://github.com/mojaloop/documentation/tree/master/docs/technical/api
	Other
✅	10. The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https] Details:This requires that the project home page URL and the version control repository URL begin with "https:", not "http:". You can get free certificates from Let's Encrypt. Projects MAY implement this criterion using (for example) GitHub pages, GitLab pages, or SourceForge project pages. If you support HTTP, we urge you to redirect the HTTP traffic to HTTPS.	Main project website https://mojaloop.io/ and https://github.com/mojaloop/
✅	11. The project MUST have one or more mechanisms for discussion (including proposed changes and issues) that are searchable, allow messages and topics to be addressed by URL, enable new people to participate in some of the discussions, and do not require client-side installation of proprietary software. [discussion] Details:Examples of acceptable mechanisms include archived mailing list(s), GitHub issue and pull request discussions, Bugzilla, Mantis, and Trac. Asynchronous discussion mechanisms (like IRC) are acceptable if they meet these criteria; make sure there is a URL-addressable archiving mechanism. Proprietary JavaScript, while discouraged, is permitted.	https://github.com/mojaloop/mojaloop-specification/issues https://github.com/mojaloop/project/issues https://join.slack.com/t/mojaloop/shared_invite/zt-2o68ky9sg-6PfwsEQV7D3AxaPnyCPaCw - Mojaloop invite self invite
✅	12. The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english] Details:English is currently the lingua franca of computer technology; supporting English increases the number of different potential developers and reviewers worldwide. A project can meet this criterion even if its core developers' primary language is not English.
✅	13. The project MUST be maintained. [maintained] Details:As a minimum, the project should attempt to respond to significant problem and vulnerability reports. A project that is actively pursuing a badge is probably maintained. All projects and people have limited resources, and typical projects must reject some proposed changes, so limited resources and proposal rejections do not by themselves indicate an unmaintained project. When a project knows that it will no longer be maintained, it should set this criterion to "Unmet" and use the appropriate mechanism(s) to indicate to others that it is not being maintained. For example, use “DEPRECATED” as the first heading of its README, add “DEPRECATED” near the beginning of its home page, add “DEPRECATED” to the beginning of its code repository project description, add a no-maintenance-intended badge in its README and/or home page, mark it as deprecated in any package repositories (e.g., npm deprecate), and/or use the code repository's marking system to archive it (e.g., GitHub's "archive" setting, GitLab’s "archived" marking, Gerrit's "readonly" status, or SourceForge’s "abandoned" project status). Additional discussion can be found here.	Yes, leverage several mechanisms for this purpose. Use and routinely fix GitHub Dependabot alerts. Use NodeJS npm-check-updates library to check and update dependencies. Use NodeJS audit-ci library.
	Change Control
	Public version-controlled source repository
✅	14. The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public] Details:The URL MAY be the same as the project URL. The project MAY use private (non-public) branches in specific cases while the change is not publicly released (e.g., for fixing a vulnerability before it is revealed to the public).	https://github.com/mojaloop
✅	15. The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [repo_track]	Yes, achieved via GitHub PRs
✅	16. To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim] Details:Projects MAY choose to omit specific interim versions from their public source repositories (e.g., ones that fix specific non-public security vulnerabilities, may never be publicly released, or include material that cannot be legally posted and are not in the final release).	Yes, achieved via release and tag naming convention as configured in CircleCI and GitHub.
✅	17. It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed] Details:Git is not specifically required and projects can use centralized version control software (such as subversion) with justification.	Yes, GitHub is used.
	Unique version numbering
✅	18. The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique] Details:This MAY be met in a variety of ways including a commit IDs (such as git commit id or mercurial changeset id) or a version number (including version numbers that use semantic versioning or date-based schemes like YYYYMMDD).	Yes, adhere to SemVer as unique version identifier for official releases and other tags for no non-official releases. https://github.com/mojaloop/helm/releases/tag/v16.0.0
✅	19. It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver] Details:Projects should generally prefer whatever format is expected by their users, e.g., because it is the normal format used by their ecosystem. Many ecosystems prefer SemVer, and SemVer is generally preferred for application programmer interfaces (APIs) and software development kits (SDKs). CalVer tends to be used by projects that are large, have an unusually large number of independently-developed dependencies, have a constantly-changing scope, or are time-sensitive. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value, because including a micro level supports simultaneously-maintained branches whenever that becomes necessary. Other version numbering formats may be used as version numbers, including git commit IDs or mercurial changeset IDs, as long as they uniquely identify versions. However, some alternatives (such as git commit IDs) can cause problems as release identifiers, because users may not be able to easily determine if they are up-to-date. The version ID format may be unimportant for identifying software releases if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery). Rationale:SemVer is widely used to communicate what an update is (e.g., if it involves incompatible API changes), whether something is newer or older. The scheme is simple, supports multiple simultaneous branches, and because it uses at least three numbers it can be distinguished from floating point. However, many find SemVer less useful for identifying software versions if only one version of the component is run (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery). For more discussion of the pros and cons of SemVer, see Hacker News' Is Semantic Versioning an Anti-Pattern? and The Semantic Versioning Anti-Pattern.	Yes, use SemVer for releases. https://github.com/mojaloop/helm/releases/tag/v16.0.0
✅	20. It is SUGGESTED that projects identify each release within their version control system. For example, it is SUGGESTED that those using git identify each release using git tags. [version_tags]	Yes, use GitHub Tags. For example: https://github.com/mojaloop/quoting-service/tags
	Release notes
✅	21. The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". {N/A justification} {Met URL} [release_notes] Details:The release notes MAY be implemented in a variety of ways. Many projects provide them in a file named "NEWS", "CHANGELOG", or "ChangeLog", optionally with extensions such as ".txt", ".md", or ".html". Historically the term "change log" meant a log of every change, but to meet these criteria what is needed is a human-readable summary. The release notes MAY instead be provided by version control system mechanisms such as the GitHub Releases workflow. Rationale:Release notes are important because they help users decide whether or not they will want to update, and what the impact would be (e.g., if the new release fixes vulnerabilities). We realize this may not apply to projects whose main results are continuously updated and are deployed to primarily one place and so allow "N/A" from such projects.	Yes, Release Notes are provided for each release, here is an example of latest: https://github.com/mojaloop/helm/releases/tag/v16.0.0
✅	22. The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. {N/A justification} [release_notes_vulns] Details:This criterion helps users determine if a given update will fix a vulnerability that is publicly known, to help users make an informed decision about updating. If users typically cannot practically update the software themselves on their computers, but must instead depend on one or more intermediaries to perform the update (as is often the case for a kernel and low-level software that is intertwined with a kernel), the project may choose "not applicable" (N/A) instead, since this additional information will not be helpful to those users. Similarly, a project may choose N/A if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery). This criterion only applies to the project results, not its dependencies. Listing the vulnerabilities of all transitive dependencies of a project becomes unwieldy as dependencies increase and vary, and is unnecessary since tools that examine and track dependencies can do this in a more scalable way.
	Reporting
	Bug-reporting process
✅	23. The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). {Met URL} [report_process]	Yes, follow standard mechanism provided by GitHub at: https://github.com/mojaloop/project/issues
✅	24. The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. [report_tracker]	https://github.com/mojaloop/project/issues
✅	25. The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. [report_responses]		Does ML provides anything for this?
✅	26. The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses] Details:The response MAY be 'no' or a discussion about its merits. The goal is simply that there be some response to some requests, which indicates that the project is still alive. For purposes of this criterion, projects need not count fake requests (e.g., from spammers or automated systems). If a project is no longer making enhancements, please select "unmet" and include the URL that makes this situation clear to users. If a project tends to be overwhelmed by the number of enhancement requests, please select "unmet" and explain.	Yes, there is a process in place. GitHub issues opened as feature types would record enhancement requests. Product council evaluates requests and moves to implement, deny or backlog feature enhancement.
✅	27. The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. {Met URL} [report_archive]	https://github.com/mojaloop/project/issues
	Vulnerability report process
✅	28. The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. {Met URL} [vulnerability_report_process] Details:Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. Projects on GitLab SHOULD consider using its ability for privately reporting a vulnerability. Projects MAY identify a mailing address on https://PROJECTSITE/security, often in the form [email protected]. This vulnerability reporting process MAY be the same as its bug reporting process. Vulnerability reports MAY always be public, but many projects have a private vulnerability reporting mechanism.	https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/contributing/cvd.html
✅	29. If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. {N/A allowed} {Met URL} [vulnerability_report_private] Details:Examples include a private defect report submitted on the web using HTTPS (TLS) or an email encrypted using OpenPGP. If vulnerability reports are always public (so there are never private vulnerability reports), choose "not applicable" (N/A).	Yes, processed immediately and investigated by technical team. Per policy at: https://docs.mojaloop.io/community/contributing/cvd.html
✅	30. The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. {N/A allowed} [vulnerability_report_response] Details:If there have been no vulnerabilities reported in the last 6 months, choose "not applicable" (N/A).	ML policy is to address all vulnerabilities with medium or higher, and exceptions are recorded per file.
	Quality
	Working build system
✅	31. If the software produced by the project requires building for use, the project MUST provide a working build system that can automatically rebuild the software from source code. {N/A allowed} [build] Details:A build system determines what actions need to occur to rebuild the software (and in what order), and then performs those steps. For example, it can invoke a compiler to compile the source code. If an executable is created from source code, it must be possible to modify the project's source code and then generate an updated executable with those modifications. If the software produced by the project depends on external libraries, the build system does not need to build those external libraries. If there is no need to build anything to use the software after its source code is modified, select "not applicable" (N/A). Rationale:If a project needs to be built but there is no working build system, then potential co-developers will not be able to easily contribute and many security analysis tools will be ineffective. This is related to Joel Test point 2, "Can you make a build in one step?"	https://app.circleci.com/organization/github/mojaloop
✅	32. It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. {N/A allowed} [build_common_tools] Details:For example, Maven, Ant, cmake, the autotools, make, rake (Ruby), or devtools (R).	Standard tools are used: npm, yarn, node-gyp.
✅	33. The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. {N/A allowed} [build_floss_tools]	Yes, only floss tools needed. It's one Mojaloop of main goals.
	Automated test suite
✅	34. The project MUST use at least one automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS (this test suite may be maintained as a separate FLOSS project). The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite(s) (e.g., via a continuous integration (CI) script or via documentation in files such as BUILD.md, README.md, or CONTRIBUTING.md). [test] Details:The project MAY use multiple automated test suites (e.g., one that runs quickly, vs. another that is more thorough but requires special equipment). There are many test frameworks and test support systems available, including Selenium (web browser automation), Junit (JVM, Java), RUnit (R), testthat (R). Rationale:Automated test suites immediately help detect a variety of problems. A large test suite can find more problems, but even a small test suite can detect problems and provide a framework to build on. E.g., "Tip #62: Test Early, Test Often, Test Automatically" ("The Pragmatic Programmer" by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas, p. 237)	Yes, several automated tests suites provided. Repo TTK-test-cases is primary repo, 7-8 collections plus several other.
✅	35. A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. [test_invocation] Details:For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby).	Yes, use standards like npm test and test:integration scripts are used along with Postman Collections.
✅	36. It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. [test_most]	Yes, automated code coverage reports. For example https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/mojaloop/central-ledger/3020/workflows/4b6bd6a8-c321-4a69-9d9e-3a710e091d58/jobs/34783
✅	37. It is SUGGESTED that the project implement continuous integration (where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result). [test_continuous_integration] Rationale:See Martin Fowler. Historically the term continuous integration focused on frequent integration, but over time the emphasis has shifted to include the notion of running automated tests as soon as the code is integrated.	Yes, via GitHub and CircleCI
	New functionality testing
✅	38. The project MUST have a general policy (formal or not) that as major new functionality is added to the software produced by the project, tests of that functionality should be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy] Details:As long as a policy is in place, even by word of mouth, that says developers should add tests to the automated test suite for major new functionality, select "Met."	Met. Enforced by CODEOWNERS during PR approval process.
✅	39. The project MUST have evidence that the test_policy for adding tests has been adhered to in the most recent major changes to the software produced by the project. [tests_are_added] Details:Major functionality would typically be mentioned in the release notes. Perfection is not required, merely evidence that tests are typically being added in practice to the automated test suite when new major functionality is added to the software produced by the project.	Standard practice performed and enforced by CODEOWNERS during PR approval process.
✅	40. It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. [tests_documented_added] Details:However, even an informal rule is acceptable as long as the tests are being added in practice.	Standard practice performed and enforced by CODEOWNERS during PR approval process.
	Warning flags
✅	41. The project MUST enable one or more compiler warning flags, a "safe" language mode, or use a separate "linter" tool to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. {N/A allowed} [warnings] Details:Examples of compiler warning flags include gcc/clang "-Wall". Examples of a "safe" language mode include JavaScript "use strict" and perl5's "use warnings". A separate "linter" tool is simply a tool that examines the source code to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes. These are typically enabled within the source code or build instructions. Rationale:"We routinely set compiler warning levels as high as possible. It doesn't make sense to waste time trying to find a problem that the compiler could find for you! We need to concentrate on the harder problems at hand." ("The Pragmatic Programmer" by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas, p. 91-92) "Tip #23: Always use Source Code Control. Always. Even if you are a single-person team on a one-week project." ("The Pragmatic Programmer" by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas, p. 88)	Yes, several tools employed for this purpose among them, eslint, eslint-config-standard, eslint-plugin-jest, and used at several steps during development and CI/CD process to find problems asap.
	42. The project MUST address warnings. {N/A allowed} [warnings_fixed] Details:These are the warnings identified by the implementation of the warnings criterion. The project should fix warnings or mark them in the source code as false positives. Ideally there would be no warnings, but a project MAY accept some warnings (typically less than 1 warning per 100 lines or less than 10 warnings).		?
	43. It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. {N/A allowed} [warnings_strict] Details:Some warnings cannot be effectively enabled on some projects. What is needed is evidence that the project is striving to enable warning flags where it can, so that errors are detected early.		Can we say ML leverages warnings across projects so that errors are detected early?

Done

• Acceptance Criteria pass
• Designs are up-to date
• Unit Tests pass
• Integration Tests pass
• Code Style & Coverage meets standards
• Changes made to config (default.json) are broadcast to team and follow-up tasks added to update helm charts and other deployment config.
• TBD

Pull Requests:

• TBD

Follow-up:

• N/A

Dependencies:

• N/A

Accountability:

• Owner: TBC
• QA/Review: TBC