LifeLine-ICT-2.0 is an open-source AI, IoT and GIS platform for environmental disaster intelligence, including flood and other environmental hazard prediction, early warning, and resilient decision support in data-scarce environments.

Because the platform may eventually interact with sensors, APIs, databases, GIS services, AI models, communication systems, dashboards, and alerting infrastructure, security is treated as a core architectural and operational requirement.

This document describes how security vulnerabilities should be reported, handled, and responsibly disclosed.

LifeLine-ICT-2.0 aims to protect:

• Source code

• User accounts and credentials

• IoT devices and gateways

• APIs and backend services

• Databases

• Environmental datasets

• GIS resources

• AI models and model artifacts

• Alerting infrastructure

• Deployment infrastructure

• Research data

• Project infrastructure

• Contributor information

• System logs and monitoring information

Security should be considered throughout the software development lifecycle rather than only after deployment.

LifeLine-ICT-2.0 is under active development.

At this stage, contributors should assume that development branches and experimental components may not be suitable for production deployment unless explicitly documented as such.

Security support will be associated with documented releases as the project matures.

| Version | Security Support |

| ----------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |

| Main development branch | Active development |

| Stable releases | Supported according to release documentation |

| Experimental branches | Not guaranteed |

Please do not publicly disclose a suspected security vulnerability through a GitHub issue, pull request, or public discussion.

Security vulnerabilities should be reported privately to the project maintainers.

Until a dedicated private vulnerability-reporting mechanism is configured, contributors should contact the project maintainers through the official project or Bugema Open Source Community communication channels.

A security report should contain enough information to allow the maintainers to understand and reproduce the problem.

Where possible, include:

• A clear description of the vulnerability.

• The affected component.

• The affected version, branch, or commit.

• Steps required to reproduce the issue.

• Expected behaviour.

• Actual behaviour.

• Potential security impact.

• Relevant logs or error messages.

• Proof-of-concept information where safe and appropriate.

• Suggested remediation, if known.

Do not include real passwords, API keys, authentication tokens, private personal information, or other secrets in the report.

Security reports may include, but are not limited to:

• Authentication bypass.

• Weak authentication controls.

• Improper session handling.

• Credential exposure.

• Privilege escalation.

• Unauthorised access to resources.

• Improper access-control checks.

• Insecure role management.

• Horizontal or vertical privilege escalation.

• Injection vulnerabilities.

• Broken access control.

• Unsafe input handling.

• Insecure API endpoints.

• Unvalidated file uploads.

• Exposure of internal services.

• Default credentials.

• Unauthenticated device access.

• Insecure communication.

• Firmware vulnerabilities.

• Unsafe device configuration.

• Unauthorised command execution.

• Exposure of sensitive information.

• Insecure database configuration.

• Accidental publication of private datasets.

• Insufficient access controls.

• Data leakage through logs or APIs.

Security concerns may include:

• Exposure of sensitive training data.

• Unsafe model-serving endpoints.

• Malicious manipulation of model inputs.

• Insecure model artifacts.

• Unauthorised modification of deployed models.

• Data poisoning concerns.

• Unsafe integration of externally supplied models or datasets.

Potential issues include:

• Unauthorised access to restricted spatial data.

• Exposure of sensitive locations.

• Unsafe geospatial API endpoints.

• Manipulation of spatial datasets.

• Insecure map-service configuration.

Examples include:

• Exposed credentials.

• Insecure deployment configurations.

• Vulnerable dependencies.

• Insecure containers.

• Misconfigured cloud services.

• Exposed administrative interfaces.

Secrets must never be committed to the public repository.

Examples include:

• Passwords.

• API keys.

• Access tokens.

• Private keys.

• Database credentials.

• Cloud credentials.

• Authentication secrets.

• IoT device credentials.

Use environment variables, secret-management systems, or other appropriate mechanisms instead.

If a secret is accidentally committed:

1. Treat the secret as compromised.

2. Revoke or rotate it immediately.

3. Notify the maintainers.

4. Remove the secret from the relevant configuration.

5. Assess whether repository history also requires remediation.

Simply deleting a secret from the latest commit does not necessarily remove it from Git history.

Contributors should avoid introducing unnecessary security risks through dependencies.

Before adding a dependency:

• Confirm that it is necessary.

• Review its maintenance status.

• Check its licensing requirements.

• Use an appropriate stable version.

• Review known security concerns where practical.

• Avoid unnecessary or abandoned dependencies.

Dependencies should be updated periodically as part of project maintenance.

Contributors should:

• Validate external input.

• Use parameterised database queries.

• Apply appropriate authentication and authorization.

• Follow least-privilege principles.

• Protect sensitive configuration.

• Avoid hard-coded credentials.

• Handle errors without exposing sensitive information.

• Validate uploaded files and external data.

• Use secure communication protocols where appropriate.

• Keep dependencies reasonably current.

• Add security-focused tests where relevant.

• Review security implications of architectural changes.

LifeLine-ICT-2.0 may connect environmental sensors, gateways, edge devices, and other IoT components.

IoT contributors should consider:

• Device identity.

• Device authentication.

• Secure communication.

• Credential management.

• Firmware integrity.

• Secure configuration.

• Physical access considerations.

• Device update mechanisms.

• Network segmentation.

• Failure and recovery behaviour.

IoT systems should not assume that network connectivity or device environments are always trustworthy.

Environmental monitoring may involve data collected from sensors, communities, institutions, geographic locations, or other sources.

Contributors must:

• Follow applicable data-protection requirements.

• Avoid unnecessary collection of personal information.

• Protect sensitive datasets.

• Document data ownership and licensing.

• Apply appropriate access controls.

• Avoid publishing confidential information.

• Consider anonymisation or aggregation where appropriate.

• Maintain data provenance.

Where data could create risks to individuals or communities, those risks should be considered before publication or operational use.

Experimental code should clearly distinguish between:

• Simulated environments.

• Development environments.

• Research prototypes.

• Test deployments.

• Production deployments.

Security weaknesses discovered during experiments should be documented rather than hidden.

Research publications or demonstrations should avoid exposing information that could facilitate attacks against operational systems.

When a vulnerability is reported, maintainers should:

1. Acknowledge receipt where practical.

2. Assess the reported issue.

3. Determine affected components and versions.

4. Attempt to reproduce the issue where appropriate.

5. Assess severity and potential impact.

6. Develop or coordinate a remediation.

7. Test the remediation.

8. Release the fix through the appropriate development process.

9. Communicate relevant security information to affected users.

10. Document the issue and remediation appropriately.

The exact timeline may depend on the severity, complexity, and affected infrastructure.

Security researchers and contributors are encouraged to allow maintainers reasonable time to investigate and address vulnerabilities before public disclosure.

Public disclosure should avoid unnecessarily exposing:

• Credentials.

• Exploit code for an unresolved vulnerability.

• Private data.

• Sensitive infrastructure details.

• Personal information.

• Operational security information.

Once an issue has been appropriately addressed, maintainers may publish a security advisory or other appropriate disclosure.

Security issues should be assessed according to factors such as:

• Likelihood of exploitation.

• Required access.

• Potential confidentiality impact.

• Potential integrity impact.

• Potential availability impact.

• Number and type of affected systems.

• Whether the vulnerability affects research or operational infrastructure.

• Whether the issue could affect environmental monitoring or alerting services.

Severity classifications may evolve as the project develops.

Security testing may include:

• Static analysis.

• Dependency scanning.

• Secret scanning.

• Authentication testing.

• Authorization testing.

• API testing.

• Input-validation testing.

• IoT security testing.

• Infrastructure configuration review.

• Container security testing.

• Penetration testing where appropriate.

• Security-focused integration tests.

Security testing should be proportionate to the maturity and risk of the component.

LifeLine-ICT-2.0 may eventually support environmental monitoring and early-warning workflows.

Before operational deployment, security reviews should consider:

• Authentication.

• Authorization.

• Data integrity.

• Sensor identity.

• Alert integrity.

• Availability.

• Network resilience.

• Backup and recovery.

• Monitoring.

• Logging.

• Incident response.

• Configuration management.

Operational systems should not rely solely on experimental or unvalidated security controls.

Every contributor shares responsibility for improving project security.

Contributors should:

• Protect credentials.

• Review their own changes.

• Report vulnerabilities responsibly.

• Avoid introducing unnecessary dependencies.

• Follow secure coding practices.

• Consider security during design.

• Test security-sensitive changes.

• Avoid committing secrets.

• Keep development environments reasonably secure.

Maintainers should:

• Protect repository access.

• Review security-sensitive changes carefully.

• Use appropriate branch protection.

• Monitor project dependencies.

• Protect project secrets.

• Maintain appropriate access controls.

• Respond to reported vulnerabilities.

• Keep security documentation current.

• Promote secure development practices.

This security policy applies to:

• Source code.

• GitHub repositories.

• APIs.

• Backend services.

• IoT components.

• AI and machine-learning components.

• GIS components.

• Databases.

• Data pipelines.

• Alerting systems.

• Deployment infrastructure.

• Documentation containing security-sensitive information.

• Other official LifeLine-ICT-2.0 project infrastructure.

LifeLine-ICT-2.0 is an evolving open-source project.

Not every component is guaranteed to be production-ready or secure for operational deployment.

Users and deployers are responsible for conducting appropriate security assessments before deploying the platform in environments where security, safety, privacy, or operational continuity are important.

Security documentation should be updated as the architecture and operational maturity of the platform evolve.

Maintained by the Bugema Open Source Community (BOSC).