The security review process (formerly security assessment process) is designed to accelerate the adoption of cloud native technologies, based on the below goals and assumptions.

The primary goal is to reduce the risk from malicious attacks and accidental breaches of privacy. This process supports that goal in two ways:

• A clear and consistent process for communication increases detection & reduces time to resolve known or suspected vulnerability issues
• A collaborative review process increases domain expertise within each participating project.

Security reviews are a necessary, time intensive process. Each company, organization and project must perform its own reviews to ensure that it meets its unique commitments to its own users and stakeholders. In open source, simply finding security-related information can be overwhelmingly difficult and a time consuming part of the security review. The CNCF security review, hereafter "security review," process is intended to enable improved discovery of security information & assist in streamlining internal and external security reviews in multiple ways:

• Consistent documentation reduces review time.
• Established baseline of security-relevant information reduced Q&A.
• Clear rubric for security profile enables organizations to align their risk profile with the project’s risk profile and effectively allocate resources (for review and needed project contribution).
• Structured metadata allows for navigation, grouping and cross-linking.

We expect that this process will raise awareness of how specific open source projects affect the security of a cloud native system; however, separate activities may be needed to achieve that purpose using materials generated by the reviews, known as artifacts or the security review package.

Each project's security review package shall include a description of:

1. the project's design goals with respect to security
2. any aspects of design and configuration that could introduce risk
3. known limitations, such as expectations or assumptions that aspects of security, whole or in part, are to be handled by upstream or downstream dependencies or complementary software
4. next steps toward increasing security of the project itself and/or increasing the applications of the project toward a more secure cloud native ecosystem

Due to the nature and time frame for the analysis, this review is not meant to subsume the need for a professional security audit of the code. Audits of implementation-specific vulnerabilities, improper deployment configurations, etc. are not in scope of a security review. A security review is intended to uncover design flaws, enhance the security mindset of the project, and to obtain a clear, comprehensive articulation of the project's design goals and aspirations while documenting the intended security properties enforced, fulfilled, or executed by said project.

Having your project undergo the security review process is a key step toward eliminating security risks. It allows one to build security as an integral part of a system and to maintain that security over time.

Security reviews have many benefits, creating:

• a measurable security baseline from that point onward,
• exposure and analysis of security issues, including the risk they introduce,
• validation of security awareness and culture among the developers for building secured projects, and
• a documented procedure, for future compliance, audit, or internal assessment

A complete security review package primarily consists of the following items:

• Self-assessment. A written assessment by the project of the project's current security statue.
• Joint-review. A joint review by both the security reviewers and the project team that includes parts of the self-assessment and expands to include a more comprehensive consideration of the project's security health. This artifact, coupled with self-assessment provide invaluable information for security auditors as well as end-users.
• Presentation. A security focused presentation of the project by the project team,
• Review the joint README template. This template is used to create a readme at the end of the joint review by the security reviewers to provide a high level summary of the joint review and is considered when reviewing for due diligence.

Finalized security review packages may be used by the community to assist in the contextual review of a project but are not an endorsement of the security of the project, not a security audit of the project, and do not relieve an individual or organization from performing their own due diligence and complying with laws, regulations, and policies.

Draft assessments contain unconfirmed content and are not endorsed as factual until committed to this repository, which requires detailed peer review. Draft reviews may also contain speculative content as the project lead or security reviewer is performing a review. Draft reviews are only for the purpose of preparing final artifact and are not to be used in any other capacity by the community.

Final slides resulting from the presentation and the project's joint review will be stored in the individual project's review folder with supporting documentation and artifacts from the review. These folders can be found under assessments/projects and clicking on the project name.

Creating the security review package is a collaborative process for the benefit of the project and the community, where the primary content is generated by the project lead and revised based on feedback from security reviewers and other members of the TAG.

• If you are interested in a security review for your project and you are willing to volunteer as project lead or you are a TAG-Security member and want to recommend a project to review, please file an issue

See security review guide for more details. To understand how we prioritize reviews, see intake process.