HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
ossf
best-practices-badge
Ruby2015–2025
ossf / best-practices-badge

best-practices-badge

🏆Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Best Practices Badge (formerly Core Infrastructure Initiative (CII) Best Practices Badge)

10Distinct people
26Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
1.4KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

🏆Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) Best Practices Badge (formerly Core Infrastructure Initiative (CII) Best Practices Badge)

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

They're talking about a different kind of best practices, but I highly recommend taking a look at the Core Infrastructure Initiative's Best Practices Project [0], which was…

dankohn1 used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 7:24:48 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year26 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-10-10 09:04:16 UTC to 2025-05-22 15:23:45 UTC.

024682015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments20152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 2 submissions, 5 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 1 submissions, 7 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC725
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC817
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
It is quite possible to responsibly implement Facebook "like" buttons on your own pages without violating your users' privacy. I wish more people would do it. I suspect that including Facebook like Pages the way Facebook wants you to do it could be considered a gdpr violation, if it were interpreted that way perhaps people would actually fix it. On the CII best practices badge site, we implement responsible links. As explained in our security assurance case, "We do have links to social media sites (e.g., from the home page), but we do this in a privacy-respecting manner. It would be easy to use techniques like embedding images from external (third party) social media sites, but we intentionally do not do that, because that would expose to an external unrelated site what our users are doing without their knowledge. We instead use the appro
Read the rest
ach described in "Responsible Social Share Links" by Jonathan Suh (March 26, 2015), specifically using share URLs. In this approach, if a user does not press the link, the social media site never receives any information. Instead, a social media site only receives information when the user takes a direct action to request it (e.g., a click), and that site only receives information from the specific user who requested it." Source: https://github.com/coreinfrastructure/best-practices-badge/b... Suh's page: https://jonsuh.com/blog/social-share-links/#use-share-urls I don't mind people sharing information on Facebook, as long as they choose to do so. If they chose to do it, that's fantastic. What bothers me is Facebook being able to track people without their consent.
In Dear Facebook: Stop cross site tracking by default
The CII best practices badge ( https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org ), which identifies key best practices for OSS projects, doesn't forbid the use of the RSA algorithm. In many situations forbidding the use of RSA (when using a public key cryptosystem) is completely impractical today. RSA is really popular, and a lot of OSS projects must be compatible with systems and organizations that use RSA. Besides, it appears to me that the primary problem is people who roll their own RSA implementations. As the article says, "In circumstances where people implement their own RSA, all bets are off in terms of using standard RSA setup procedures, and developers will frequently do strange things...". It also later shows a picture where the disastrous choice is "rolling your own RSA". Yes, there are a lot of ways to screw up an RSA implem
Read the rest
entation (as noted in the article), but that's less important if it's implemented by people who know what they're doing. The CII badge does specifically address the problem of people who roll their own crypto. Specifically, its "crypto_call" criterion says: "If the software produced by the project is an application or library, and its primary purpose is not to implement cryptography, then it SHOULD only call on software specifically designed to implement cryptographic functions; it SHOULD NOT re-implement its own." https://github.com/coreinfrastructure/best-practices-badge/b... Full disclosure: I lead the CII Best Practices badge project.
In RSA is a fragile cryptosystem

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.