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

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

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:

  • FLOSS license (Apache 2.0)

  • Basic security practices

  • Good security practices

  • Security documentation

  • Vulnerability reporting process

  • Security response team

  • Automated testing

  • 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:

References

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