Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Develop potential security exposure metric for sub projects #138

Open
baentsch opened this issue Feb 7, 2025 · 1 comment
Open

Develop potential security exposure metric for sub projects #138

baentsch opened this issue Feb 7, 2025 · 1 comment

Comments

@baentsch
Copy link
Member

baentsch commented Feb 7, 2025

As part of the discussion to decide which sub projects to include in the security response process it became apparent --at least to me-- that OQS does not know

  • how often code gets executed in specific sub projects
  • which portions of specific sub projects are getting executed at all
  • where there's test coverage deficiencies

This issue therefore is to suggest developing a "code coverage dashboard" showing what (internal and external) sub project's code get executed in response to "code activations" by the highest available calling API.

For liboqs this may be as simple as tracking code coverage when running its tests (e.g., along the lines of open-quantum-safe/liboqs#167). For language-wrappers and oqsprovider it probably means developing specific test cases to be analyzed by a code coverage tool and separately reporting how often/which code gets executed in which sub project.

By way of example: I'd envision something along the lines of "An MLKEM768X25519 OpenSSL TLS handshake test leads to x instructions executed in libssl, y instructions in libcrypto, z instructions in oqsprovider, q instructions in liboqs, r instructions in mlkem_native.

These figures could serve as guidance pertaining to the probability of security exposure(s) in the different code bases and in consequence, to work load introduced to contributors and maintainers of each sub component where it to be subject to specific security response procedures. As the figures could be markedly different based on liboqs build config options , it may be valuable to report such configs separately, helping OQS to recommend specific config options for specific use cases: Some users may prefer better code coverage testing over performance, for example.

An additional benefit would be to improve code coverage (testing), a generally useful thing in its own right (and about sensible to tackle 8 years after the issue has been raised for liboqs :-)

@SWilson4
Copy link
Member

SWilson4 commented Feb 7, 2025

Here's a first stab at code coverage testing: open-quantum-safe/liboqs#2072

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants