Skip to content

docs: add SECURITY.md - #80

Draft
AntTheLimey wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/security-policy
Draft

docs: add SECURITY.md#80
AntTheLimey wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/security-policy

Conversation

@AntTheLimey

@AntTheLimey AntTheLimey commented Aug 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds SECURITY.md to the repository root. It names security@pgedge.com as
the single reporting route and points at the pgEdge Vulnerability Disclosure
Statement for scope, safe harbour and CVE handling.

The file is identical in every pgEdge product repository — nothing in it is
repo-specific.

Why an in-repo copy when there is an org default

pgEdge/.github carries the same file as an organisation default, which covers
every repository that has none of its own. Defaults do not appear in a
repository's file tree, git history, clones or release archives — only in the
Security tab. A product a customer clones or vendors should carry its own
policy, and OpenSSF Scorecard's security-policy check only looks in the
repository itself.

Draft on purpose — merge order matters

The only link in this file is https://docs.pgedge.com/security, and that URL
returns 404 today. Merging before the statement is live publishes a
security policy whose one actionable link is dead.

Merge order:

  1. docs: add vulnerability disclosure statement pgedge-docs#138 — publishes docs.pgedge.com/security. Out of
    draft and awaiting review.
  2. docs: add org-wide SECURITY.md default .github#6 — the org-wide default.
  3. This PR, alongside the other product repositories.

No action needed from you until #138 merges. Reviews welcome now.

Also removes .github/SECURITY.md

This repository already carried its own policy at .github/SECURITY.md. It
directed reporters to security/advisories/new — GitHub's private
vulnerability reporting form, which is disabled across the pgEdge org and stays
disabled — so the link was dead, and there was no email fallback. It also
promised a fix timeline, which has not been approved.

A file in .github/ takes precedence over one in the repository root, so the
new root file does not supersede it on its own. It has to go in the same PR or
coldfront keeps serving the dead link.

Points at security@pgedge.com as the single reporting route and at the
pgEdge Vulnerability Disclosure Statement for scope, safe harbour and CVE
handling. Identical across every pgEdge product repository.

Do not merge before pgEdge/pgedge-docs#138 publishes
docs.pgedge.com/security; until it does, the only link in this file 404s.
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 006f9c6c-8164-4e16-8cd9-f9bd4a028500

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@codacy-production

codacy-production Bot commented Aug 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Not up to standards ⛔

🔴 Issues 1 high · 1 minor

Alerts:

⚠ 1 issue (≤ 0 issues of at least minor severity)

Results:
2 new issues

Category Results
Security 1 high (1 false positive)
Comprehensibility 1 minor

View in Codacy

NEW Get contextual insights on your PRs based on Codacy's metrics, along with PR and Jira context, without leaving GitHub. Enable AI reviewer
TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.

It pointed reporters at security/advisories/new, GitHub's private
vulnerability reporting form. That is disabled org-wide and stays
disabled, so the link is dead and the file offered no email fallback.

It also promised a fix timeline, which is not something we have
approved. A file in .github/ takes precedence over one in the root, so
the new root SECURITY.md does not supersede it on its own.
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant