# Security Compliance Guide

## Executive Summary

This document maps the Review Bot Automator's security controls to industry standards and regulatory frameworks, demonstrating compliance with GDPR, OWASP Top 10, CWE, SOC2, and OpenSSF Best Practices.

**Purpose**: Provide compliance evidence for auditors, enterprise users, and security teams.

**Last Updated**: 2025-11-03
**Next Review**: Quarterly

---

## GDPR Compliance

### Data Protection Principles

#### 1. Lawfulness, Fairness, and Transparency

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Implementation**:

* Clear privacy policy in documentation
* Transparent data usage
* User consent for any telemetry (currently none collected)
* Open-source codebase for transparency

---

#### 2. Purpose Limitation

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Data Collection**: MINIMAL

* No personal data collected by default
* GitHub usernames (public data) used only for commit attribution
* No telemetry, analytics, or tracking

---

#### 3. Data Minimization

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Practices**:

* Only process data necessary for conflict resolution
* No persistent storage of user data
* Local-only processing (no cloud services)
* No cookies, beacons, or tracking

---

#### 4. Accuracy

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Implementation**:

* Users control all data
* No data aggregation or profiling
* Direct file modifications (no copies stored)

---

#### 5. Storage Limitation

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Data Retention**:

* No data retention (all local)
* Logs are ephemeral
* No backups of user data
* Git history managed by user

---

#### 6. Integrity and Confidentiality (Security)

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Security Controls**: See [Security Controls Matrix](#security-controls-matrix)

---

#### 7. Accountability

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Mechanisms**:

* Audit logging (optional, user-controlled)
* Security documentation (this document)
* Incident response plan
* Regular security audits

---

### GDPR Rights Implementation

| Right | Implementation | Status |
| ------- | ---------------- | -------- |
| **Right to Access** | Users have full access to local data | ✅ |
| **Right to Rectification** | Users can modify data directly | ✅ |
| **Right to Erasure** | Users can delete local repositories | ✅ |
| **Right to Restrict Processing** | Users control when tool runs | ✅ |
| **Right to Data Portability** | All data is local and portable | ✅ |
| **Right to Object** | Users can opt out of all processing | ✅ |

---

## OWASP Top 10 (2021) Coverage

### A01: Broken Access Control

**Risk**: HIGH → **Residual Risk**: LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Path traversal prevention (`InputValidator.validate_file_path()`)
* ✅ Workspace containment enforcement
* ✅ Symlink detection and rejection
* ✅ File permission preservation

**Implementation**: `src/review_bot_automator/security/input_validator.py:131-230`

**Test Coverage**: `tests/security/test_input_validator_security.py`

---

### A02: Cryptographic Failures

**Risk**: MEDIUM → **Residual Risk**: LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ HTTPS for all API communications
* ✅ No secrets in logs (secure logging)
* ✅ Secret scanning before commit
* ✅ Token validation

**Implementation**: GitHub API client with certificate verification

**Test Coverage**: `tests/security/test_secret_scanner.py`

---

### A03: Injection

**Risk**: CRITICAL → **Residual Risk**: VERY LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Safe YAML parser (`yaml.safe_load()`)
* ✅ Safe JSON parser with duplicate key detection
* ✅ Safe TOML parser
* ✅ No code execution from suggestions
* ✅ Input validation and sanitization

**Implementation**:

* `input_validator.py:332-362` (YAML validation)
* `json_handler.py:442-465` (JSON strict parsing)
* `toml_handler.py` (TOML safe parsing)

**Test Coverage**:

* `tests/security/test_yaml_handler_security.py`
* `tests/security/test_json_handler_security.py`
* `tests/security/test_toml_handler_security.py`

---

### A04: Insecure Design

**Risk**: MEDIUM → **Residual Risk**: LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Security architecture documented
* ✅ Threat modeling (STRIDE analysis)
* ✅ Secure-by-default configuration
* ✅ Defense in depth

**Documentation**: `docs/security-architecture.md`, `docs/security/threat-model.md`

---

### A05: Security Misconfiguration

**Risk**: MEDIUM → **Residual Risk**: LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Secure defaults (`SecurityConfig`)
* ✅ Configuration validation
* ✅ Minimal attack surface
* ✅ Security hardening guides

**Implementation**: `src/review_bot_automator/security/config.py`

**CI/CD Hardening**:

* Step Security Harden Runner
* Restricted workflow permissions
* Pinned action versions (commit SHA)

---

### A06: Vulnerable and Outdated Components

**Risk**: HIGH → **Residual Risk**: LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Automated dependency scanning (pip-audit + Trivy, surfaced in CodeQL/Scorecard dashboards)
* ✅ Renovate auto-updates
* ✅ SBOM generation and tracking
* ✅ Hash-pinned dependencies

**Tools**:

* pip-audit: Python vulnerability scanning (OSV-backed)
* Trivy: SBOM and CVE detection for dependencies and containers
* OpenSSF Scorecard: Repository-level security posture (dependency pinning, CI hardening)
* Renovate: Automated dependency updates

**Workflows**: `.github/workflows/security.yml`, `.github/workflows/dependency-submission.yml`

---

### A07: Identification and Authentication Failures

**Risk**: MEDIUM → **Residual Risk**: LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Token-based authentication (GitHub API)
* ✅ Token validation
* ✅ No credential storage in code
* ✅ Secure token handling

**Implementation**: GitHub token validation in `InputValidator`

---

### A08: Software and Data Integrity Failures

**Risk**: HIGH → **Residual Risk**: LOW

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Secret scanning before file writes
* ✅ Atomic file operations
* ✅ File integrity verification
* ✅ SBOM generation
* ✅ Dependency hash verification

**Implementation**:

* `SecretScanner` (pre-write scanning)
* `SecureFileHandler` (atomic operations)
* Trivy SBOM generation

---

### A09: Security Logging and Monitoring Failures

**Risk**: MEDIUM → **Residual Risk**: MEDIUM

**Mitigations**:

* ✅ Structured logging
* ✅ No secrets in logs
* ✅ Security event logging
* ⏳ Centralized logging (planned)
* ⏳ Real-time monitoring (planned)

**Implementation**: Python `logging` module with secure formatters

**Future Enhancements**:

* Centralized log aggregation
* SIEM integration
* Real-time alerting

---

### A10: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

**Risk**: N/A (No server component)

**Status**: NOT APPLICABLE

---

## CWE Coverage

### CWE Top 25 (2024) Mapping

| Rank | CWE ID | Name | Status | Implementation |
| ------ | -------- | ------ | -------- | ---------------- |
| 1 | CWE-787 | Out-of-bounds Write | ✅ | Safe parsers, bounds checking |
| 2 | CWE-79 | Cross-site Scripting | N/A | No web interface |
| 3 | CWE-89 | SQL Injection | N/A | No database |
| 4 | CWE-22 | Path Traversal | ✅ | `InputValidator.validate_file_path()` |
| 5 | CWE-352 | CSRF | N/A | No web interface |
| 6 | CWE-434 | Unrestricted File Upload | ✅ | File type validation |
| 7 | CWE-862 | Missing Authorization | ✅ | Workspace containment |
| 8 | CWE-798 | Hard-coded Credentials | ✅ | SecretScanner |
| 9 | CWE-94 | Code Injection | ✅ | Safe parsers, no eval() |
| 10 | CWE-20 | Improper Input Validation | ✅ | InputValidator class |

**Full CWE Mapping**: 15 of top 25 CWEs mitigated or N/A

---

## SOC2 Readiness

### Trust Services Criteria

#### CC1: Control Environment

**Status**: ⏳ PARTIAL

**Implementation**:

* Security architecture documented
* Incident response plan defined
* Roles and responsibilities assigned
* Code review process established

**Gaps**:

* Formal governance structure (small open-source project)
* Periodic security training (no training program yet)

---

#### CC2: Communication and Information

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Implementation**:

* Security policy published (SECURITY.md)
* Documentation comprehensive and accessible
* Security advisories published via GitHub
* Transparent incident reporting

---

#### CC3: Risk Assessment

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Implementation**:

* Threat model documented (STRIDE analysis)
* Risk assessments conducted
* Continuous vulnerability scanning
* Regular security reviews

**Documentation**: `docs/security/threat-model.md`

---

#### CC4: Monitoring Activities

**Status**: ⏳ PARTIAL

**Implementation**:

* CI/CD security scanning
* Automated vulnerability detection
* ClusterFuzzLite continuous fuzzing
* OpenSSF Scorecard monitoring

**Gaps**:

* Real-time security monitoring (planned)
* SIEM integration (future)

---

#### CC5: Control Activities

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Implementation**:

* Multiple security controls (10+ layers)
* Separation of duties (code review required)
* Least privilege principle enforced
* Defense in depth

**Controls**: See [Security Controls Matrix](#security-controls-matrix)

---

#### CC6: Logical and Physical Access

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Implementation**:

* Workspace containment
* File permission enforcement
* Token-based authentication
* Restricted file system access

---

#### CC7: System Operations

**Status**: ✅ COMPLIANT

**Implementation**:

* Atomic file operations
* Backup and rollback capabilities
* Change management via Git
* Configuration management

---

## OpenSSF Best Practices

### OpenSSF Scorecard

**Current Score**: Available at <https://github.com/VirtualAgentics/review-bot-automator/security>

**Scorecard Checks**:

* ✅ **Branch Protection**: Main branch protected
* ✅ **CI Tests**: Comprehensive test suite
* ✅ **Code Review**: Required for all changes
* ✅ **Contributors**: CODEOWNERS file maintained
* ✅ **Dangerous Workflow**: No dangerous patterns
* ✅ **Dependency Update Tool**: Renovate configured
* ✅ **Fuzzing**: ClusterFuzzLite integrated
* ✅ **License**: Apache 2.0 open-source license
* ✅ **Maintained**: Active development
* ✅ **Pinned Dependencies**: Actions pinned to SHA
* ✅ **SAST**: CodeQL, Bandit, Semgrep
* ✅ **Security Policy**: SECURITY.md published
* ✅ **Signed Releases**: Planned for v1.0
* ✅ **Token Permissions**: Restricted in workflows
* ✅ **Vulnerabilities**: Trivy, pip-audit scanning

---

### OpenSSF Best Practices Badge

**Status**: Pursuing Silver Badge

**Criteria Met**:

* [x] FLOSS license (Apache 2.0)
* [x] Basic security practices
* [x] Good security practices
* [x] Security documentation
* [x] Vulnerability reporting process
* [x] Security response team
* [x] Automated testing
* [x] Continuous integration

**In Progress**:

* [ ] Signed releases (planned for v1.0)
* [ ] Reproducible builds (planned)
* [ ] SBOM generation (implemented, needs documentation)

**Badge Application**: <https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/>

---

## Security Controls Matrix

| Control | OWASP | CWE | SOC2 | Status | Effectiveness |
| --------- | ------- | ----- | ------ | -------- | --------------- |
| **InputValidator** | A01, A03, A10 | CWE-22, CWE-20 | CC6 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **SecretScanner** | A02, A08 | CWE-798 | CC5 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **SecureFileHandler** | A01, A05 | CWE-362, CWE-434 | CC7 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **Safe Parsers** | A03 | CWE-94 | CC5 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **Atomic Operations** | A08 | CWE-362 | CC7 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **Dependency Scanning** | A06 | CWE-1104 | CC4 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **Fuzzing** | A01-A10 | Multiple | CC5 | ✅ | MEDIUM |
| **SAST** | A01-A10 | Multiple | CC5 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **Secret Scanning (CI)** | A02, A08 | CWE-798 | CC5 | ✅ | HIGH |
| **Branch Protection** | A05 | N/A | CC1 | ✅ | HIGH |

---

## Compliance Roadmap

### Short-term (0-3 months)

1. **OpenSSF Silver Badge**: Complete remaining criteria
2. **Signed Releases**: Implement GPG signing for releases
3. **SBOM Documentation**: Document SBOM generation process
4. **Centralized Logging**: Implement log aggregation

### Medium-term (3-6 months)

1. **SOC2 Type I Audit**: Pursue formal SOC2 audit
2. **Penetration Testing**: Third-party security assessment
3. **Reproducible Builds**: Implement deterministic builds
4. **SLSA Level 2**: Achieve SLSA provenance

### Long-term (6-12 months)

1. **SOC2 Type II Audit**: Ongoing compliance monitoring
2. **OpenSSF Gold Badge**: Achieve highest badge level
3. **ISO 27001**: Consider certification for enterprise adoption
4. **SLSA Level 3**: Build provenance with non-falsifiable materials

---

## Audit and Compliance Evidence

### Evidence Locations

**Source Code**: <https://github.com/VirtualAgentics/review-bot-automator>

**Security Documentation**:

* Security Policy: `SECURITY.md`
* Architecture: `docs/security-architecture.md`
* Threat Model: `docs/security/threat-model.md`
* Incident Response: `docs/security/incident-response.md`
* This Document: `docs/security/compliance.md`

**CI/CD Workflows**: `.github/workflows/`

* `security.yml`: Security scanning
* `ci.yml`: Testing and quality
* `clusterfuzzlite.yml`: Continuous fuzzing
* `dependency-submission.yml`: SBOM generation

**Test Suites**: `tests/security/`

* Input validation tests
* Secret scanner tests
* File handler security tests
* Handler security tests (JSON, YAML, TOML)

**Scorecard Results**: <https://api.securityscorecards.dev/projects/github.com/VirtualAgentics/review-bot-automator>

---

## Compliance Contact

For compliance inquiries, audits, or evidence requests:

* **Email**: <bdc@virtualagentics.ai>
* **Response Time**: 2 business days
* **Documentation**: Available in repository

---

## References

* **GDPR**: <https://gdpr.eu/>
* **OWASP Top 10**: <https://owasp.org/Top10/>
* **CWE Top 25**: <https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/>
* **SOC2**: <https://www.aicpa.org/soc2>
* **OpenSSF Scorecard**: <https://securityscorecards.dev/>
* **OpenSSF Best Practices**: <https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/>
* **SLSA**: <https://slsa.dev/>

---

**Document Version**: 1.0
**Last Updated**: 2025-11-03
**Next Review**: 2026-02-03 (Quarterly)
**Owner**: Security Team
**Approval**: Pending