chore(safety): full ISO/IEC/DO compliance evidence pack + max coverage#35
Merged
Conversation
Build out the complete functional-safety and cybersecurity evidence pack and drive every go-FuSa compliance gap report to zero GAP / zero FAIL, while maximising requirement and test coverage. Evidence pack (machine + documents): - HARA structured data (.fusa-hara.json) reconciled with HARA.md (6 hazards, 5 safety goals, 4 operational situations). - TARA (tara.json/md, ISO 21434), architecture boundary (boundary.mermaid/dot), configuration index (sci.json), problem-report register (.fusa-problems.json). - DO-178C plan set: SVP, SCMP, SQAP, Software Accomplishment Summary (sas.md). - SAFETY_MANUAL.md (integration-facing), SECURITY.md (vuln policy), INCIDENT-RESPONSE.md (IEC 62443 CR 6.2.1), .fusa-iec62443.json (target SL-2). - HLR/LLR levels on all requirements (DO-178C A-2.2). Requirements (100 -> 112, all traced AND tested): - REQ-SEC-001..006 cybersecurity requirements derived from the threat model (parser robustness, E2E tamper/replay detection, trust-boundary validation, untrusted-envelope and convert-driver input handling), annotated on the real functions with requirement-based security tests. - REQ-SEOOC-001..009 integration assumptions now all have demonstrating tests; 100% requirement traceability, function-annotation density, AND test coverage. Test coverage: - virtual 80.7% -> 99.1%, slave 92.6% -> 100%, ldf 86.0% -> 89.7%, cmd/go-lin 21.3% -> 49.8% (mandatory commands refactored to io.Writer). - safety and mock remain 100%. CI / release: - New compliance job runs all 7 gap reports (ISO 26262 / IEC 61508 / ISO 21434 / IEC 62443 / DO-178C / UN R.155 / SLSA), each exiting non-zero on a GAP. - go-FuSa job expanded: trace -sec-tested 100, coverage, boundary, sci, coupling, tara, fmea, release + SLSA builder injection. - New coverage-floor gate (library packages >= 85%). - release.yml regenerates boundary/sci and injects the provenance builder. Compliance scoreboard (0 GAP, 0 FAIL on every standard; remaining items are inherent human-review MANUAL attestations or N/A for a software component): ISO 26262 15 PASS · IEC 61508 19 PASS · ISO 21434 10 PASS · IEC 62443 10 PASS · DO-178C 30 PASS · UN R.155 6 PASS · SLSA 6 PASS. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Matt Jones <47545907+SoundMatt@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Builds out the complete functional-safety and cybersecurity evidence pack, drives every go-FuSa compliance gap report to zero GAP / zero FAIL, and maximises requirement and test coverage.
Compliance scoreboard (0 GAP, 0 FAIL everywhere)
Remaining items are inherent human-review MANUAL attestations (e.g. verification independence) or N/A for a software component.
Evidence pack
.fusa-hara.json) reconciled withHARA.md— 6 hazards, 5 safety goals, 4 operational situations.tara.json/md), boundary diagram (boundary.mermaid/.dot), SCI (sci.json), problem register (.fusa-problems.json).SAFETY_MANUAL.md), SECURITY.md, INCIDENT-RESPONSE.md, IEC 62443 SL declaration (.fusa-iec62443.json, SL-2).SVP.md,SCMP.md,SQAP.md,sas.md; HLR/LLR levels on all requirements.Requirements: 100 → 112 (all traced and tested)
REQ-SEC-001..006cybersecurity requirements from the threat model (parser robustness, E2E tamper/replay detection, trust-boundary validation, convert-driver input handling) — annotated on the real functions with requirement-based security tests.REQ-SEOOC-001..009integration assumptions now all have demonstrating tests → 100% traceability, density and test coverage.Test coverage
io.Writer). safety & mock 100%.CI / release
trace -sec-tested 100,coverage,boundary,sci,coupling,tara,fmea,release+ SLSA builder injection.release.ymlregenerates boundary/sci and injects the provenance builder.Verification (local)
go build/go vet/go test -race✅ ·relay conform --strictPASS ·relay interop --protocol LINEQUIVALENT · full gofusa lifecycle (check / trace -req-coverage 100 / -sec-tested 100 / cyber / vuln / qualify) ✅ · all 7 gap reports 0 GAP ✅