OpenSSF Scorecard: OSS Security Benchmark

• OpenSSF Scorecard is an automated tool that measures OSS security by scanning repositories against 18 distinct metrics.
• It applies weighted scoring on risks such as Dangerous-Workflow and Token-Permissions to facilitate standardized supply chain assessments.
• Empirical evaluations reveal correlations between higher aggregate scores and reduced vulnerabilities, while emphasizing areas for security improvement.

The OpenSSF Scorecard is an automated assessment tool that quantitatively measures the security posture of open-source software (OSS) repositories. Developed to address supply chain risks and facilitate adoption of industry-relevant security practices, Scorecard assigns weighted scores to key criteria and is used for large-scale ecosystem benchmarking across platforms such as npm and PyPI. It is integrated into wider standards frameworks and is subject to ongoing empirical validation and methodological comparison.

1. Definition, Purpose, and Industry Integration

The OpenSSF Scorecard is designed to automate the evaluation of OSS project security by analyzing repositories against a curated set of security metrics. These metrics are mapped to practices in leading frameworks such as the NIST Secure Software Development Framework and the OWASP Software Component Verification Standard (SCVS) (Zahan et al., 2022). The tool’s primary objectives include:

• Reducing manual overhead for OSS risk assessment across the supply chain.
• Facilitating rapid, standardized decision-making for dependency selection and vendor risk management.
• Identifying ecosystem-level security gaps for practitioners and policy makers.
• Driving alignment with widely recognized frameworks, which it achieves by explicitly mapping Scorecard checks to SSDF/SCVS criteria.

2. Technical Methodology and Metric Computation

Scorecard operates by automatically scanning GitHub repositories and scoring them against 18 distinct metrics, each reflecting a critical aspect of software security. These include, among others:

• Dangerous-Workflow (identification of susceptible CI/CD workflow configurations)
• Binary-Artifacts (presence of non-reviewable binaries)
• Token-Permissions (minimum permission configuration for automation tokens)
• Code-Review, Maintained, Branch-Protection, Security-Policy, License, Vulnerabilities

Each metric is scored on an ordinal scale from 0 to 10, or assigned –1 for inconclusive results (e.g., on empty repositories or API error). Four risk levels are defined (Critical, High, Medium, Low) with corresponding metric weights (10, 7.5, 5, 2.5).

The aggregate or “confidence” score is computed as a weighted mean across all checks for which a conclusive result was obtained:

$$\text{Aggregate Score} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{18} \text{Score}_i \times \text{Weight}_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{18} \text{Weight}_i}$$

Scorecard analyses leverage public data platforms (BigQuery) and Open Source Insights (OSI) to map packages (from npm or PyPI) to their underlying version-controlled repositories for scan execution.

3. Empirical Evaluation and Ecosystem Comparisons

In an extensive paper, Scorecard was run across over 832,000 npm and 191,500 PyPI packages (Zahan et al., 2022). Manual review of subsets validated the discriminatory power of key metrics such as Dangerous-Workflow, Binary-Artifacts, Token-Permissions, Maintained, Branch-Protection, Security-Policy, among others.

Findings include:

• >99% of packages had no known vulnerabilities in the OSV database, but high aggregate scores could be falsely assigned in cases of missing workflows or empty repositories.
• Major gaps in adoption exist for Code-Review, advanced automation (Dependency-Update-Tool), Packaging, Signed-Releases, and CII Best Practices.
• Comparative analysis found PyPI excelled in license declaration and fuzzing tool adoption, whereas npm exhibited stronger configurations for workflow token permissions.

Evaluation revealed the need for industry consensus and refinement on metrics like Pinned-Dependencies, which may not accurately detect dependency pinning due to differences in ecosystem conventions.

4. Relationship to Security Outcomes and Practice Prioritization

Studies leveraging regression and causal analysis models have examined whether Scorecard practices causally influence security outcomes (Zahan et al., 2022, Zahan et al., 18 Apr 2025). Key findings include:

• Maintained status, Code-Review, Branch Protection, and Security Policy consistently emerge as the most significant predictors of reduced vulnerability count and faster update cycles.
• Aggregate Scorecard scores are statistically associated with fewer vulnerabilities and faster dependency updates (shorter Mean Time To Update, MTTU). For instance, a unit increase in score yields a reduction in expected vulnerability count and update delays (Zahan et al., 18 Apr 2025).
• The relationship with mean time to remediate (MTTR) is complex; causal analysis indicates larger, newer repositories benefit more, but smaller or older projects may experience longer remediation intervals due to organizational constraints.
• Some analyses found a statistically significant positive correlation between higher aggregate scores and higher vulnerability counts, hypothesizing that more mature or visible projects attract greater scrutiny and reporting (Zahan et al., 2022). This suggests outcome metrics may be confounded by ecosystem popularity and exposure.

5. Security Policies and Structured Vulnerability Disclosure

The inclusion of a SECURITY.md file or comparable security policy within repositories correlates with significantly higher Scorecard results and improved security practices (Kancharoendee et al., 11 Feb 2025). Comparative statistics demonstrate:

$$\mu_{\text{with policy}} = 5.93,\quad \mu_{\text{without policy}} = 3.95,\quad p < 0.001$$

Repositories with a defined security policy show statistically significant improvements in Branch Protection, Dependency-Update-Tool usage, Maintained status, and SAST implementation. Projects are strongly encouraged to employ SECURITY.md files, with clear private vulnerability reporting channels to minimize public exposure without remediation.

Robust classification and statistical analysis methods (including Cohen’s Kappa, significance testing on score distributions) underpin these findings.

6. Contextual Limitations and Comparison to Alternate Frameworks

Scorecard’s static risk weighting yields reproducibility but can reduce adaptability to rapidly evolving supply chain threats. The SAFER framework and similar methodologies propose dynamic, data-driven weighting (e.g., risk weights modulated by real-time code coverage or developer expertise) and trust-centric aggregation functions (Siddiqui et al., 6 Aug 2024). These alternatives demonstrate improved alignment with manual expert assessment, less subjectivity, and adaptive risk evaluation via formulas such as:

$$R^{(F)}_{S_i, t_k} = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(4 - 0.04 \cdot (w^{(DEV)}_{S_i, t_k} R^{(DEV)}_{S_i, t_k} + w^{(PB)}_{S_i, t_k} R^{(PB)}_{S_i, t_k} + w^{(UR)}_{S_i, t_k} R^{(UR)}_{S_i, t_k}))}$$

A plausible implication is that future frameworks may require reassessment of static weighting to accommodate evolving security landscapes and human expertise involvement. Scorecard’s transparent methodology supports benchmarking, but newer dynamic approaches offer avenues for more nuanced risk quantification.

7. Sector-Specific Findings and Recommendations

Applied to research software (Hegewald et al., 5 Aug 2025), Scorecard assessments reveal generally weak security posture: mean aggregate score μ = 3.50 (σ = 1.06), with most projects not implementing critical practices (signed releases, branch protection, strict token permissions). Low-effort interventions are recommended:

• Enable SCM platform branch protection to prevent force-pushes and enforce pull request reviews.
• Configure CI/CD workflow tokens with minimum permissions.
• Employ cryptographic signature mechanisms for all published releases.

Implementation of these measures could substantially mitigate supply chain risks and advance the integrity of scientific research ecosystems.

8. Extensions, Deep Assessment, and Composite Scoring

LibVulnWatch extends the Scorecard paradigm by using graph-based agentic workflows to cover up to 88% of Scorecard checks while adding detection for risks such as RCE vulnerabilities, licensing issues, missing SBOMs, and regulatory gaps (Wu et al., 13 May 2025). Its Trust Score formula enables five-domain aggregation:

$$\text{Trust}(l) = \frac{1}{5} \sum_{d \in \{\text{Li}, \text{Se}, \text{Ma}, \text{De}, \text{Re}\}} d(l)$$

where each $d(l)$ quantifies risk in License, Security, Maintenance, Dependency, Regulatory domains (1–5 scale, low risk = 5).

This approach foregrounds the importance of evidence-based, multifactorial governance and highlights the potential for agentic and AI-driven methods to supplement static security scorecards with dynamic, context-sensitive risk profiling. Continuous publication of results to public leaderboards facilitates real-time ecosystem monitoring and informed library selection.

---

The OpenSSF Scorecard persists as a robust, ecosystem-wide tool for measuring OSS security hygiene, with industry-wide benchmarking utility and extensive empirical support. Its static weighting and transparency foster comparability, while sector analyses, methodological critiques, and extensions such as LibVulnWatch highlight both current strengths and the trajectory toward more adaptive, granular, and actionable assessment schemes.