kingchencandGitHub
91f6f67257
The first language stecker on the C ABI hub: a .NET binding exposing all 514 indicators as idiomatic `IDisposable` classes, generated from `wickra.h`. ## What's here - **`bindings/csharp/`** — the `Wickra` .NET 8 package. `[LibraryImport]` source-generated P/Invoke (`NativeMethods.g.cs`) plus idiomatic wrappers (`Indicators.g.cs`), both generated from the committed `bindings/c/include/wickra.h`. The binding owns no indicator maths — it only marshals types across the C ABI. - **Marshalling, verified end-to-end against the native library.** Opaque handles cross as `nint` kept alive per call via a `SafeHandle`; `bool` as `[MarshalAs(U1)]` (Rust `bool` is one byte); a self-correcting `DllImportResolver` validates the loaded library actually exports the Wickra ABI. Tests cover one representative per FFI archetype (scalar, candle, pairwise, multi-output, bars, profile, values-profile, order-book / array-input) plus exact Sma reference values. - **NuGet packaging** — `dotnet pack` produces `Wickra.<version>.nupkg`; the release pipeline stages prebuilt native libraries under `runtimes/<rid>/native/` for six target triples (win/linux/osx × x64/arm64). - **`examples/csharp/`** — nine examples mirroring `examples/c/`: streaming, backtest, multi_timeframe, parallel_assets, three strategies, and fetch_btcusdt + live_binance. - **CI** — a `csharp` job on the three OSes builds the C ABI, tests the binding, and runs the offline examples. **Release** — a gated `csharp-publish` job packs and pushes to NuGet (gated on `NUGET_API_KEY`, independent of the GitHub-release job so a C# hiccup never blocks the C/C++ asset release). - **Docs consistency wave** — README, CONTRIBUTING, CHANGELOG, examples/README, the issue / PR templates, `sync-about.yml`, and `.gitattributes`. The native Python / Node / WASM bindings and the C ABI are untouched; this is additive. Publishing to NuGet stays gated behind the release tag and the secret.
58 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
58 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
# Threat model
|
|
|
|
This document describes Wickra's attack surface and the threats considered,
|
|
together with their mitigations. It complements the security assurance case in
|
|
[`SECURITY.md`](SECURITY.md). Wickra is a computational technical-analysis
|
|
library (a Rust core with Python, Node.js and WebAssembly bindings plus a C ABI
|
|
and the .NET binding built on it),
|
|
not a network service or trading system; the attack surface is correspondingly
|
|
small.
|
|
|
|
## Assets
|
|
|
|
- **Integrity of computed indicator values** — consumers may use them in
|
|
automated decisions, so silently wrong output is the primary concern.
|
|
- **Availability of the calling process** — a library must not crash or hang
|
|
its host on malformed input.
|
|
- **Integrity of published artifacts** — the crates, wheels and npm packages
|
|
users install.
|
|
- **The build and release pipeline** and its secrets (publishing tokens).
|
|
|
|
## Actors / trust boundaries
|
|
|
|
- **Library consumer** (trusted) — calls the API with numeric data. Data may
|
|
originate from untrusted sources (e.g. a market feed), so *input values* are
|
|
treated as untrusted even though the caller is trusted.
|
|
- **Optional live feed** — with the `live-binance` feature, data crosses a
|
|
network boundary from an exchange over TLS.
|
|
- **Contributors** (semi-trusted) — propose changes via pull requests.
|
|
- **Supply chain** — upstream dependencies and the CI/CD platform.
|
|
|
|
## Threats and mitigations
|
|
|
|
| Threat | Mitigation |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| Memory-safety exploit (buffer overflow, UAF) via crafted input | Pure safe Rust; `unsafe` is forbidden/minimised, so the compiler precludes these classes. |
|
|
| Misuse of the C ABI FFI boundary (invalid/dangling handle, undersized batch buffer) | The C ABI (`bindings/c`) is the sole `unsafe` surface. Its shim adds no logic, NULL-checks every handle (returning `NaN`/no-op), writes only into caller-sized buffers, and catches panics so none cross the boundary. A caller passing a non-NULL but dangling pointer is undefined behaviour by C's own contract — out of scope, the same as any C library. |
|
|
| Denial of service via malformed/degenerate input (NaN, infinities, extreme magnitudes) | Indicators reject non-finite inputs and validate parameters at construction; update paths are exercised by coverage-guided fuzzing and unit tests for edge cases. |
|
|
| Silently incorrect results | 100% line coverage on the core crate; reference-value tests against known-good sources; streaming/batch parity tests. |
|
|
| Integer overflow / panics | `clippy::pedantic` with `-D warnings`; debug assertions and overflow checks enabled in test/fuzz builds. |
|
|
| Adversary-in-the-middle on the optional live feed | Connection uses TLS via the platform library; transport security is delegated to that reviewed implementation. |
|
|
| Compromised dependency (supply chain) | Dependencies pinned (`Cargo.lock`, hash-locked CI requirements), monitored by Dependabot, audited by `cargo-deny` (advisories + licenses) on every change. |
|
|
| Malicious or accidental change to `main` | Branch protection requires signed commits and blocks force-push and deletion; all changes flow through pull requests with required CI; static analysis (CodeQL, Clippy) and fuzzing run on every change. |
|
|
| Compromised CI / leaked secrets | Workflows use least-privilege `permissions:`; secrets live only as encrypted GitHub Actions secrets; secret scanning with push protection is enabled; workflows are linted by `zizmor`. |
|
|
| Tampered release artifact | Releases are built in CI, tags are signed, and assets carry build provenance attestations (verifiable with `gh attestation verify`). |
|
|
|
|
## Out of scope
|
|
|
|
- Wickra implements no authentication, authorization or cryptography of its own,
|
|
stores no user data, and exposes no network listener; those threat classes do
|
|
not apply.
|
|
- Vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies that do not affect Wickra are
|
|
tracked as exploitability (VEX) records (see [`SECURITY.md`](SECURITY.md)).
|
|
|
|
## Maintenance
|
|
|
|
This threat model is reviewed when the architecture changes materially (for
|
|
example, a new input family, a new network feature, or a new release channel).
|