diff --git a/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-chainguard.md b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-chainguard.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f97154303 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-chainguard.md @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +# In-toto Adopter Interview - Chainguard + +Interviewee: Billy Lynch, Staff Software Engineer at Chainguard +Interview date: Dec 12, 2024 + +## Organization Intro + +Chainguard is the safe source for open source, so everything we produce includes supply chain metadata like signatures, attestations, SBOMs, etc - in-toto is foundational spec for how we represent much of that data. + +## How long has your organization used the project? +Before I joined Chainguard, I was involved with in-toto as an attestation framework in various different projects (SLSA, Sigstore). I met many of the Chainguard founders through these open source projects and when I joined we continued to make heavy use of those projects, and as a result in-toto as well. We are heavy users of in-toto today, mostly the attestation spec. + +## What were the main motivations to adopt the project and which key features do you use today? + +The key feature is primarily the attestation format (e.g. the envelope and statement specs). In-toto provides a common format to describe attestation metadata like SBOMs and SLSA provenance so it is a nice and important compatibility layer for us. +In-toto also makes it easy for us to develop our own attestation predicates as well - this allows us to provide additional attestation data specific to how our images are built. + +## Compared with other products and projects in this space (proprietary and open) what drew you to the project? + +We were already working with the adjacent ecosystems (e.g. Sigstore, SLSA), so we wanted to stay in-line with the ecosystems we were already working with - in-toto was a natural choice for us. + +## What is the current level of usage (pre-production, production) and scale? + +We currently have over 1000 images in our catalog - we publish attestations for every image we produce which include SLSA provenance, SBOMs, and our own attestation predicate. + +## What version of the project is currently in use and what is your update cadence with the project? + +Because we were early adopters, we are still using the pre-v1 format, but I don't believe there has been much change from pre-v1 to v1 for the pieces we are using. If anything this shows that the spec has been fairly stable. :) +We can likely update to v1, but there hasn't been a strong driving force for it at the moment. + +## Can you walk me through what your experience was in either adopting it outright or integrating it with your existing services and applications? What challenges did you experience with the project? + +What was really nice about in-toto attestations are the existing specs and examples users can see in the repo. These are really useful for us to see what types of metadata users already exist so we don't need to reinvent the wheel. And if the existing specs don’t fit our needs, we can define our own predicate format but still be compatible with the rest of the in-toto attestation spec. + +We've used this for our own images to define an image configuration attestation, which is similar to an SBOM but contains more information about how exactly we built an image. We were able to build this on top of in-toto’s existing format which is very powerful. + +Re challenges: Not specific to in-toto, but one of the challenges in the broader ecosystem is predicate fragmentation (e.g. what kind of SBOM predicate to use). I like that in-toto doesn't try to be the one-standard-to-rule-them-all, but gives us basic building blocks to define common concepts and is flexible enough to allow different predicates and easy extensions. There are many adjacent projects working to solve these problems, and it's something we keep an eye on. + +## Did you find the information in the repo or the project docs valuable to your implementation? If so, where did you find the information and what specifically was useful? + +The spec doc in the attestation repo is very thorough! Love the examples and the detailed spec definitions. Overall the docs are very useful and helpful. + +## Did you need to engage with the community members or maintainers? If so what was the context of the engagement, which communication channels did you use and did it reach an acceptable outcome? + +Pre-Chainguard, I was helping work on the SLSA build provenance format, which often had discussions with the in-toto community for the best way to define the spec in a way that was complementary to the rest of in-toto. These conversations often happened on slack (k8s or openssf) or conferences like KubeCon or OSSummit. +We still work with the maintainers today across various projects in the ecosystem - It's been great to work with all the maintainers, both on in-toto but also adjacent projects as well! + +We still work with the maintainers today across various projects in the ecosystem - It's been great to work with all the maintainers, both on in-toto but also adjacent projects as well! + +## Has your implementation of the project provided measurable value? Such as reducing manual activities, faster integrations, supported federation/multi-cloud, ease of use, cost savings, etc. + +SBOM and attestations have increasingly become table stakes, particularly for users in regulated environments. Having standard ways to lay out this information with the artifacts we produce is very useful to us. This helps improve the supply chain security for our users by enabling transparency into our artifacts. + +## If the project were to be archived now or in the future, what level of difficulty would your organization experience to remove it from your environments? If that were to happen, would you fork and maintain the project to keep functionality, step into a maintainership role within the project, or something else? + +Because the spec already exists, even if the maintenance stops, the spec is still there for us to use. The existing spec has been fairly stable for us, and we don't anticipate that changing. + +In the event there did need to be a V2 version of the spec, we would likely be interested in being involved to help shape that spec, or at the very least keeping an eye on things and be part of the community. + +## Is there something you feel that holds the project back from reaching its ultimate potential? + +In many ways, I like where the project is today, at least for attestations. It serves as a common baseline and doesn’t try to be too prescriptive about predicates. + +There are complementary projects that are often intertwined with in-toto such as DSSE (Dead Simple Signing Envelope) and SLSA, but are different enough that I'm fine with them being independent and letting them grow separately. Similar groups of maintainers often contribute across these various projects, so there's been a strong ecosystem behind them making sure they work together well. + +## In your opinion, what could the project improve? + +More examples in the wild are always appreciated! In the attestation repo, there are folders detailing all the common predicates, these are super interesting to look at and check out how others are using in-toto. + +## What are the overall strengths of the project? + +In-toto helps define the fundamentals for attestations, but they aren't too prescriptive about exact predicate formats and what data needs to be included. This helps give a common baseline for supply chain metadata, but still gives the flexibility for projects and companies to define their own custom types to fit their needs. + +It's also been great to see the cross-industry and academic collaboration for in-toto and other related projects - it's a large community effort. + +## Do you have any future plans regarding the project? More involvement, feature requests, expansion, etc. + +Honestly, I'm fairly happy with where things are! I'm sure there will continue to be discussions about various predicate types and the best ways to represent supply chain attestation data, but that isn't necessarily specific to in-toto. + +There may be more predicate types we end up using, or creating ourselves in the future! diff --git a/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-github.md b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-github.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..90e5a9657 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-github.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +# In-toto Adopter Interview - GitHub + +Interviewee: Zach Steindler, Principal Eng at GitHub +Interview date: Oct 7, 2024 + +## Organization Intro + +### Can you give us an overview of your organization and what it does? + +GitHub is a website where people work on code together. Very popular in OSS for people to share code and build artifacts. Also used widely by enterprise. + +## Motivation + +### Compared with other products in this space (proprietary and open), what drew you to the project? + +There are primiarly 2 things that drew us to the project: + +- We started using in-toto when we added build provenance. In-toto collects source projects to write specifications. +- In-toto use cases were attractive to us. There aren’t really other projects out there as an alternative that has lots of other projects using it. + +## Usage Scenario + +### How does your organization use the project and how long have you used it? + +GitHub owns npm, we released npm provenance in 2022 which uses in-toto. We use the in-toto framework to create publish attestation. Last year we released github artifact attestation, so anything you build with github can have build provenance. We also use SBOM and use in-toto to represent it. + +### What version is used and what is your update cadence with the project? + +We maintain our own version of custom predicate. We are currently up-to-date and we update as needed. + +### Can you walk me through what your experience was in either adopting it outright or integrating it with your existing services and applications? What challenges did you experience with the project? + +It has been pretty smooth. There are docs around how to produce custom predicates. There are docs on how to produce build provenance. Libraries are relatively straightforward to use. Can’t think of any challenges we had! + +### Did you find the information in the repo valuable to your implementation? What specifically? + +Yes! Pretty good docs for in-toto attestation repo, SLSA(Supply Chain level for software artifacts) repo, very good repo. + +### Has your implementation of the project provided measurable value? + +Tens of thousands of people make use of npm provenance and github artifact attestation. + +### Do you have any future plans regarding the project? More involvement, feature requests, expansion, etc. + +Yes! For GitHub releases, we plan to make it immutable by leveraging in-toto attestation. Besides that, nothing concrete. We always keeping track of new attestation released from in-toto. + +## Perception + +### What is your perception in terms of the project’s: + +#### Community openness + +Very open, I participated in the slack channel in CNCF, and have created issues/PRs that have been resolved. + +#### Governance + +Don’t think I attended any meeting. Some of the PRs have been reviewed by the Governance/steering committee, they were prompt and thorough in review. + +#### Community growth potential + +Could be biased, we are definitely invested in the ecosystem and believe in the growth of it. + +#### Maintainer diversity and ladder + +Multiple Xs of diversity. There is some diversity in terms of gender and people’s background (industry & academic & non profit OSS foundation). + +#### Maintainer response + +Couple of PRs made by me were handled well. Things are resolved in a reasonable amount of time. + +### How are you participating in the project community? + +Yes but not recently. About 6 months ago, I attended some community meetings and submitted PRs. + +### Did you need to engage with the community members or maintainers? If so, what was the context of the engagement and did it reach an acceptable outcome? + +So far, I have good experience with PRs. + +## Project Strengths + +### In your opinion, what are the overall strengths of the project? + +Community discussions are great and how they bring them (industry & academic & non profit OSS foundation). Really thinking ahead and anticipating needs before people need them. Continue to be an active community. + +## Project Improvements + +### Is there something you feel that holds the project back from reaching its ultimate potential? + +Not really. Struggle to come up with an answer. Only worry is if there are lots of layoffs, would people have time to contribute in-toto? + +### In your opinion, what can the project do better? + +Continue to think about where the industry is headed and anticipate the needs. They have demonstrated the ability to do so so far. diff --git a/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-lockheedmartins.md b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-lockheedmartins.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..23320ab41 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-adopter-interview-lockheedmartins.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +# In-toto Adopter Interview - GitHub + +Interviewee: Ian Dunbar-hall, Head of Open Source Program Office, Lockheed Martins +Interview date: Sept 3, 2024 + +## Organization Intro + +### Can you give us an overview of your organization and what it does? + +[Lockheed Martins](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/contact.html) is a leading aerospace and defense company. + +## Motivation + +### Compared with other products in this space (proprietary and open), what drew you to the project? + +I recall it was at KubeCon either 2020 or 2021, and I went to the contribfest for the in-toto project. The project solves a foundational need in our space, securing software supply chain, which is very critical to our customers for delivering high quality products. Without it, it has resulted in very bad outcomes, Solarwinds, or Crowdstrike incidents, for example. + +## Usage Scenario + +### How does your organization use the project and how long have you used it? + +For the in-toto specification, we don’t directly work with specification but consume it as part of libraries. + +For the in-toto subprojects (application or libraries), we started to use the libraries in our OSS projects in Jan 2023. We have also incorporated in-toto attestation for corporate networks for any OSS projects that come to internal & external use. Basically any time when we consume any OSS projects, we check on the following: +- Is the OSS project approved for use in our company? +- How do we know if someone maliciously modified it in the corporate network? +- Can we still adopting it for products we are delivering to our customers? + +### What version is used and what is your update cadence with the project? + +We update the libraries fairly regularly, whenever any core library gets updated. +Specification changes are also adopted as part of the library update. We don’t implement the spec ourselves. + +### Can you walk me through what your experience was in either adopting it outright or integrating it with your existing services and applications? What challenges did you experience with the project? + +Overall, a really positive experience! +- Well organized oss projects, very strong community behind it. +- Very large enterprises and universities are involved. Easy to get support. +- Well beyond community compared with other graduated projects. +- We also contributed some PR and got good feedback/reviews. Testify donated a subproject under in-toto (command line client to create attestation) and we use it to create attestation for everything. +- Lots of end users and vendors. + +### Did you find the information in the repo valuable to your implementation? What specifically? + +Yes, without a ton of background, we were able to quickly incorporate the in-toto python libraries. Slack/community meetings are both helpful. Easy to get technical recommendations. Docs are quite good for such a complex problem. + +### Has your implementation of the project provided measurable value? + +Yes. The in-toto capabilities in our products were demo-ed frequently. We are writing a white paper around how to use in-toto across public sectors for supply chain security via the public sector of the CNCF end user groups. + +### Do you have any future plans regarding the project? More involvement, feature requests, expansion, etc. + +- Need to drive more adoptions within the company. +- We are working on the SBOMit project within OpenSSF, which is built on top of in-toto: + * https://github.com/sbomit/specification + * [Bomctl](https://github.com/bomctl/bomctl) will be announced as a sandbox project as part of OpenSSF this thurs which also uses in-toto. + +## Perception + +### What is your perception in terms of the project’s: + +#### Community openness + +Very active community, weekly meeting for some part of the in-toto ecosystem. Variety of the people involved speak very well for the project. + +#### Governance + +Steering committee was formed and a lot of people involved know the spec well, a good technical community. + +#### Community growth potential + +Good growth and expansion. + +#### Maintainer diversity and ladder + +Totally see this growing. + +#### Maintainer response + +Nothing but quick response and feedback. + +### How are you participating in the project community? + +We have done in-toto related talks at CloudNativeSecurityCon, OpenSource Summit etc. We are pretty active in the community, being on the community calls. We are also maintaining a few other projects which are built on top of in-toto. + +### Did you need to engage with the community members or maintainers? If so, what was the context of the engagement and did it reach an acceptable outcome? + +A variety of reasons. My first one was a first time in-toto user and then I wanted to incorporate in-toto in our OSS tool, and a few other minor contributions. All were addressed timely with good feedback. Really good experience which led me to be more deeply involved. + +## Project Strengths + +### In your opinion, what are the overall strengths of the project? + +Beyond the community, and diversity of others using it, the spec is also very flexible. You can add to it, or expand it or create a unique solution with it. + +## Project Improvements + +### Is there something you feel that holds the project back from reaching its ultimate potential? + +Growing the list of attestation types of in-toto will strengthen the project more. For example, adding an OSS program approval. + +### In your opinion, what can the project do better? + +- Has done a really good job of getting people using in-toto and sometimes people don’t really realize they are using it. + * [SLSA](https://slsa.dev/) is built on top of in-toto, which is very well known. Yet people don’t realize it. + +- Needs more marketing or branding because people don’t realize it as much as they are using it. diff --git a/projects/in-toto/in-toto-graduation-dd.md b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-graduation-dd.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b14899a26 --- /dev/null +++ b/projects/in-toto/in-toto-graduation-dd.md @@ -0,0 +1,330 @@ +# In-toto Graduation Due Diligence + +- [In-toto graduation application issue](https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/1162/) + +Project Repo(s): http://github.com/in-toto +Project Site: https://in-toto.io/ +Communication: #in-toto on CNCF Slack Workspace + +Project points of contacts: Santiago Torres, santiagotorres@purdue.edu + +## Graduation Criteria Summary for In-toto + +### Criteria Evaluation + +Lin Sun (@linsun) conducted the due diligence and adopter interview for Graduation. The project has completed the criteria that show its maturity at the applied level. The following criteria are noteworthy to call out: + +- A notable stable project with mature capabilities and a wide [adopter](https://github.com/in-toto/friends?tab=readme-ov-file#project-adopters) base. +- The project has a wide range of interest across academic and cross different industries. +- The project [integrates](https://github.com/in-toto/friends?tab=readme-ov-file#project-integrations) with various other projects in the cloud native ecosystem such as GitHub, GitLab, GUAC, Tekton, etc. +- Implementation of the steering committee to capture adopters' voice in the project development and roadmap. +- The project is not only vendor neutral but also has a very diversed set of maintainers, adopters and integrators. +- The project does an excellent job of making sure that its public meetings are accessible, with notes, and easy to find meeting links. + +The following actions were provided to the in-toto project that were considered blocking but have since been resolved: + +- Updating the list of subprojects in GitHub, found from the Governancy review. +- Provide an updated roadmap document in GitHub. +- Document the release process. +- Provide instructions of onboarding & offboarding members/roles in the community. +- Move inactive maintainers to emeritus maintainers. +- Added a few missing adopters. +- 1 High severity issue along with a few outstanding issues that were found from the security audit in 2023 have been addressed. + +### Adoption Evaluation: + +The adopter interviews reflect the in-toto project is in use for the level which the project applied, which is CNCF graduation. It has a good range of adopters across different industries and vendors, including GitHub, DataDog, SLAS, Solarwinds, Lockheed Martins and more. Every adopter I interviewed is quite happy with in-toto. Highlight some of the project strengths I heard during adopter interviews: + +- "Beyond the community, and diversity of others using it, the spec is also very flexible. You can add to it, or expand it or create a unique solution with it." +- "Community discussions are great and how they bring them (industry & academic & non profit OSS foundation). Really thinking ahead and anticipating needs before people need them. Continue to be an active community." +- "It's also been great to see the cross-industry and academic collaboration for in-toto and other related projects - it's a large community effort." + +Only 1 adopter suggested 1 minor improvement, which is increased marketing effort. Other adopters seem happy with in-toto today. + +### Final Assessment + +The TOC has found the project to have satisfied the criteria for Graduation. + +## Application Process Principles + +### Suggested + +N/A + +### Required + +- [X] **Give a presentation and engage with the domain specific TAG(s) to increase awareness** + +[Presentation](https://zoom.us/rec/share/H4AeeCUzrh7dVDzv7udMJmK-jWHvENmyWmcZvG4-1rZbVWUTn7RAByqKSfG3g9ya.OJnqcezJAXcGMce0?startTime=1721235498000) was given to the TAG security in July 2014, which was recorded in this [issue](https://github.com/cncf/tag-security/issues/1290). + +- [x] **TAG provides insight/recommendation of the project in the context of the landscape** + +[Very strong support](https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/1162#issuecomment-2236636343) from TAG security on in-toto's CNCF graduation. + +- [X] **All project metadata and resources are [vendor-neutral](https://contribute.cncf.io/maintainers/community/vendor-neutrality/).** + +No issues were found during due diligence, both code and documentation are vendor neutral. Vendor neutral is clearly mentioned twice in the governance doc. Based on the community meeting minutes, [contributor stats](https://intoto.devstats.cncf.io/d/5/companies-table?orgId=1&var-period_name=Last%20year&var-metric=contributions) and what adopters say about the project, in-toto is very diverse. It is one of the projects that started in academic and attracted a good range of interest from industries as well. + +- [x] **Review and acknowledgement of expectations for graduated projects and requirements for moving forward through the CNCF Maturity levels.** + - [x] Met during Project's application on 21-06-2024. + +I met with the project lead and went over the expectation and requirements for graduated project, as recorded [here](https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/1162#issuecomment-2190111991). + +- [X] **Additional documentation as appropriate for project type, e.g.: installation documentation, end user documentation, reference implementation and/or code samples.** + +Docs are available at https://in-toto.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html which includes install, API, code sample, and how to contribute etc. + +## Governance and Maintainers + +Note: this section may be augmented by the completion of a Governance Review from TAG Contributor Strategy. + +### Suggested + +- [ ] **Governance has continuously been iterated upon by the project as a result of their experience applying it, with the governance history demonstrating evolution of maturity alongside the project's maturity evolution.** + +The [Governance doc](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) is clear. There is very few changes to it since it was created in Feb, 2023. + +### Required + +- [X] **Clear and discoverable project governance documentation.** + +I was able to find it easily. + +- [X] **Governance is up to date with actual project activities, including any meetings, elections, leadership, or approval processes.** + +Confirmed with the team the [Governance doc](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) is up to date. + +- [X] **Governance clearly documents [vendor-neutrality](https://contribute.cncf.io/maintainers/community/vendor-neutrality/) of project direction.** + +Vendor neutral is clearly mentioned twice in the governance doc. Steering committee composition is also diverse at the moment. + +- [X] **Document how the project makes decisions on leadership roles, contribution acceptance, requests to the CNCF, and changes to governance or project goals.** + +Election process of the steering committee is documented [here](https://github.com/in-toto/community/tree/main/elections). [Decision making](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#decision-making) and [change process](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#change-review-process) are also documented. + +- [X] **Document how role, function-based members, or sub-teams are assigned, onboarded, and removed for specific teams (example: Security Response Committee).** + +The [GOVERNANCE.md document](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) shows various project roles and how decisions are made. + +- [X] **Document complete list of current maintainers, including names, contact information, domain of responsibility, and affiliation.** + +In-toto's [Maintainer list](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/blob/develop/MAINTAINERS.txt) shows maintainers from Purdue University and New York University. I've confirmed the following maintainers are still active and worked with the project to move the two inactive maintainers to emeritus maintainers: + + Santiago Torres + Email: santiagotorres@purdue.edu + GitHub username: @SantiagoTorres + + Lukas Puehringer + Email: lukas.puehringer@nyu.edu + GitHub username: @lukpueh + + Justin Cappos + Email: jcappos@nyu.edu + GitHub username: @JustinCappos + + Aditya Sirish A Yelgundhalli + Email: aditya.sirish@nyu.edu + GitHub username: @adityasaky + +Given the in-toto project's scope is the in-toto framework and specification, the maintenance effort is low and the current list of maintainers appears to be sufficient. The maintainers also have a few active sub-project maintainers in the core maintainer pipeline if needed to promote one of them. The adopter interviews appeared to indicate activity/health of maintainership where the community has been very responsive to questions or any issues raised by adopters. In addition, in-toto has a very diverse [steering committe members](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/STEERING-COMMITTEE.md), including members from TestifySec, ControlPlane and Datadog, in addition to members from Purdue and NYU. + +- [x] **A number of active maintainers which is appropriate to the size and scope of the project.** + +For the current cadence of changes in the project and backlog of work, the project has sufficient active maintainers to sustain its current and future momentum. Adopters I spoke to are all happy with either contributing to in-toto or getting support from the in-toto community. + +- [x] **Document a complete maintainer lifecycle process (including roles, onboarding, offboarding, and emeritus status).** + +The project maintains a description of different roles and their election process in its [community repository](https://github.com/in-toto/community) + +- [x] **Demonstrate usage of the maintainer lifecycle with outcomes, either through the addition or replacement of maintainers as project events have required.** + +Maintainers for subprojects have been managed by the ITSC and Sub-project maintainers as pull-requests to their corresponding MAINTAINERS.txt files (e.g., [[1, self nomination](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-rs/pull/89)],[[2, stepping down](https://github.com/in-toto/attestation/pull/406)],[[3, community nomination](https://github.com/in-toto/witness/pull/385)]). + +- [x] **Project maintainers from at least 2 organizations that demonstrates survivability.** + +As an minimal security specification / framework, the in-toto project does not have a high degree of feature additions in the project. Effort comes on either the implementations, such as the Go implementation (used by tools like Trivy and Tekton), the Python reference implementation (used by Datadog), the Java implementation (used by the Jenkins plugin and Rabobank), and the specification (where all implementations coordinate for interoperability). The graduation application is only for the in-toto project itself which is the framework/specification. + +Since reaching the incubation stage, the project has switched its governance model to use a steering committee. The first in-toto Steering Committee (ITSC) was voted on by the in-toto community and comprises five members from organizations spanning industry and academia. The ITSC has oversight over all in-toto sub-projects such as the specification, the Attestation Framework, and implementations maintained by the community written in Python, Go, Java, and Rust. Each sub-project has its own set of maintainers recorded in a CODEOWNERS or MAINTAINERS file in its repository. Across sub-projects, the project has contributors from a diverse set of organizations like Google, Kusari, New York University, Purdue University, Verizon, Intel, and TestifySec. + +The current ITSC comprises of the following: +- Santiago Torres-Arias (Purdue University) +- Justin Cappos (New York University) +- Jack Kelly (Control Plane) +- Cole Kennedy (TestifySec) +- Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy (Datadog) + +- [X] **Code and Doc ownership in Github and elsewhere matches documented governance roles.** + +On Jan 7, 2025, Justin Cappos walk through this with me during a screen sharing session where he confirmed that code and doc ownership in Github are assigned properly with two primary groups (maintainers and steering members). The project's code and doc ownership appear to match the documented governance roles for the project. + +- [X] **Document agreement that project will adopt CNCF Code of Conduct.** + +The project has CNCF CoC [recorded](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md), which says "The in-toto community abides by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation's code of conduct." + +- [X] **CNCF Code of Conduct is cross-linked from other governance documents.** + +The CoC and the assertion of adherence is referenced in the [GOVERNANCE.md](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#code-of-conduct). + +- [X] **All subprojects, if any, are listed.** + +Subprojects are listed in the [README.md](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/README.md#subprojects) file of in-toto/community. + +- [X] **If the project has subprojects: subproject leadership, contribution, maturity status documented, including add/remove process.** + +Subproject leadership is encoded in a subproject-level MAINTAINERS.txt file (e.g., [in-toto-rs](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-rs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.txt)). Sub-project maturity is encoded in the project's README.md file (e.g., [in-toto-rs](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-rs/blob/master/README.md)). Add/remove processes are handled by the in-toto steering committee as described [here](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#onboarding-and-offboarding-all-roles). + +## Contributors and Community + +Governance Review from TAG Contributor Strategy is performed in Oct 2024. + +The team rated the review as "Mostly Satisfactory". The steering committee style governance is perceived favorable, along with the project's transparency in different areas such as public documentation, record, and communications. Refer to the [full review](https://github.com/cncf/tag-contributor-strategy/pull/740/files) for details. + +### Suggested + +- [X] **Contributor ladder with multiple roles for contributors.** + +The contributor ladder is encoded in the [GOVERNANCE.md document](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md). + +### Required + +- [X] **Clearly defined and discoverable process to submit issues or changes.** + +A contribution guide is placed at the top level [community repository](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md). A security disclosure process is encoded on the a separate [SECURITY.md](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/SECURITY.md) file. + +- [X] **Project must have, and document, at least one public communications channel for users and/or contributors.** + +Communication channels are encoded in the [website](https://in-toto.io/contact/). It contains a developer facing mailing list, a public mailng list, a slack join link, github and IRC contacts. + +- [X] **List and document all project communication channels, including subprojects (mail list/slack/etc.). List any non-public communications channels and what their special purpose is.** + +Communication channels are encoded in the [website](https://in-toto.io/contact/). Non-public communication channels are described in in-toto's [security disclosure process](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/SECURITY.md). + +- [X] **Up-to-date public meeting schedulers and/or integration with CNCF calendar.** + +The in-toto community meetings are scheduled on the first friday of each month at 11AM et, and is displayed in the [CNCF public calendar](https://tockify.com/cncf.public.events/monthly?search=in-toto). + +- [X] **Documentation of how to contribute, with increasing detail as the project matures.** + +A contribution guide is placed at the top level [community repository](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md). I observed a few additional updates to the contribution guide this year, related to the newly added reference documentation policy and some refinement for it. + +- [X] **Demonstrate contributor activity and recruitment.** + +Constant contributor activity observed on devstats, and based on community meeting notes, meetings are well attended. There has been recruitments at KubeCon and other conferences including but not limited to project booth, presenting a KubeCon NA keynote and other talks related to in-toto. + +## Engineering Principles + +- [X] **Document project goals and objectives that illustrate the project’s differentiation in the Cloud Native landscape as well as outlines how this project fulfills an outstanding need and/or solves a problem differently.** + +This is documented well at the project's readme, under a section that describes how [in-toto differentiates in the cloud native landscape](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/README.md#how-is-in-toto-differentiated-in-the-cloud-native-landscape---what-does-it-do-differently-and-why). + +- [X] **Document what the project does, and why it does it - including viable cloud native use cases.** + +https://in-toto.io/in-toto/ & https://github.com/in-toto/friends explain well what the project does and its integrations with other projects in the ecosystem. + +- [X] **Document and maintain a public roadmap or other forward looking planning document or tracking mechanism.** + +Roadmap for project with pointers to subproject ROADMAPs are encoded in a [ROADMAP.md file](https://github.com/in-toto/community/blob/main/ROADMAP.md) + +- [X] **Roadmap change process is documented.** + +Roadmap text [current roadmap](https://github.com/in-toto/community/tree/main/ROADMAP.md) outlines how and when the community-wide rodamap is updated (usually once a year). Each sub-project may also have their own ROADMAP that aligns to subproject-wide SLAs + +- [X] **Document overview of project architecture and software design that demonstrates viable cloud native use cases, as part of the project's documentation.** + +The [friends](https://github.com/in-toto/friends) repository outlines how cloud native applications and integrations use in-toto and how the in-toto architecture aligns with its goals. Further, in-toto is published as a [peer-reviewed paper](https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/torres-arias) which outlines how it can be used in cloud native CI/CD platforms, as well as social coding platforms and distributed buildsystems. + +- [X] **Document the project's release process and guidelines publicly in a RELEASES.md or equivalent file that defines:** + + - [X] Release expectations (scheduled or based on feature implementation) + - [X] Tagging as stable, unstable, and security related releases + - [X] Information on branch and tag strategies + - [X] Branch and platform support and length of support + - [X] Artifacts included in the release. + - Additional information on topics such as LTS and edge releases are optional. Release expectations are a social contract between the project and its end users and hence changes to these should be well thought out, discussed, socialized and as necessary agreed upon by project leadership before getting rolled out. + +The in-toto project has multiple implementations with varied release cadences depending on the involved stakeholders. For example, the Python implementation offers a feature-stable offering, which focuses on releasing bug-fix releases, whereas the golang implementation provides a "sandbox" for new and experimental features. As such, each subproject manages their own release cadence. + +All implementations follow semver to communicate their feature support, as well as backwards and forwards compatiblity. + +- [x] **History of regular, quality releases.** + +A history of releases is [kept on our changelog](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/blob/develop/CHANGELOG.md) + +## Security + +Note: this section may be augemented by a joint-assessment performed by TAG Security. + +### Suggested + +- [X] **Achieving OpenSSF Best Practices silver or gold badge.** + +[in-toto achieves a gold OpenSSF Best Practice badge](https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/1523?criteria_level=2) + +### Required + +- [X] **Clearly defined and discoverable process to report security issues.** + +Repositories describe the disclosure process using a [SECURITY.md file](https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/blob/develop/SECURITY.md) + +- [X] **Enforcing Access Control Rules to secure the code base against attacks (Example: two factor authentication enforcement, and/or use of ACL tools.)** + +GitHub teams are used to provide granular access to different repositories within the organization. Protected branches are used to avoid pushes to master. Dependabot, and secret scanning is also added to all implementation repositories. + +- [X] **Document assignment of security response roles and how reports are handled.** + +Disclosure is handled by the ITSC. In addition, GitHub private vulnerability reporting is used (and has been successfully used before) to handle disclosures on implementations. + +- [X] **Document Security Self-Assessment.** + +in-toto was the [first project to carry out a security self-assessment](https://github.com/cncf/tag-security/commit/06b71c4db99ba07107cba6cf8f6fc6d4461fce82) with TAG security, and aided in developing the current process. + +- [X] **Third Party Security Review.** + +See the in-toto [Security Audit ‘23](https://in-toto.io/security-audit-23/). The project has resolved the majority of findings from the security audit and created issues for resolution of any outstanding. All issues related to the in-toto framework or specification have been resolved. + +The witness implementation still has a few [outstanding issues](https://github.com/in-toto/witness/issues/268) to be resolved. This DD doc focuses on the in-toto framework and specification, thus we consider the issues related to the witness implementation out of scope. + +- [X] **Achieve the Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Best Practices passing badge.** + +The in-toto project has a [Gold CII (now OpenSSF) Best Practices Badge](https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1523?criteria_level=2). +According to the OpenSSF Best Practices website, the in-toto project received its initial OpenSSF Best Practices badge on January 5th, 2018. + +## Ecosystem + +### Suggested + +N/A + +### Required + +- [X] **Publicly documented list of adopters, which may indicate their adoption level (dev/trialing, prod, etc.)** + +Adoptions are documented in the [in-toto friends repository](https://github.com/in-toto/friends). As part of the review, I worked with the project lead to add a few missing adopters to the list. + +- [X] **Used in appropriate capacity by at least 3 independent + indirect/direct adopters, (these are not required to be in the publicly documented list of adopters)** + +Adopters are [documented](https://github.com/in-toto/friends) which includes at least 3 indepdendent adopters. Adopter interviews also showed 3 independent adopters. All adopters I interviewed are using in-toto for production. + +The project provided the TOC with a list of adopters for verification of use of the project at the level expected, i.e. production use for graduation, dev/test for incubation. + +- [X] **TOC verification of adopters.** + +The project's adopter interviews reflect the appropriate level of adoptions demonstrating maturity of a graduation level project. Refer to the Adoption portion of this document for more details. + +- [X] **Clearly documented integrations and/or compatibility with other CNCF projects as well as non-CNCF projects.** + +Integrations are [documented](https://github.com/in-toto/friends?tab=readme-ov-file#project-integrations), including a good range of popular projects/platforms such as GitHub, GitLab, GUAC, Jenkins, Sigstore etc. + +#### Adoption + +##### Adopter 1 - Lockheed Martins/Aerospace and defense company + +This adopter interview is performed in Sept 2024 and recorded a very happy adopter who also contributes to the in-toto project. Refer to the [interview summary](in-toto-adopter-interview-lockheedmartins.md) for more details. + +##### Adopter 2 - GitHub/Software company + +This adopter interview is performed in Oct 2024 and recorded a very happy adopter who has great expereience interacting with the in-toto community. Refer to the [interview summary](in-toto-adopter-interview-github.md) for more details. + +##### Adopter 3 - Chainguard/Software company + +This adopter interview is performed in Dec 2024 and recorded a very happy adopter who has great expereience interacting with the in-toto community. Refer to the [interview summary](in-toto-adopter-interview-chainguard.md) for more details.