# Security Policy

Thanks for taking the time to look at ScreenTinker's security. The project
is a one-person open-source effort, so response times reflect that — but
reports are taken seriously and handled in good faith.

## Reporting a vulnerability

**Primary channel — GitHub Security Advisories (preferred):**

[github.com/screentinker/screentinker/security/advisories/new](https://github.com/screentinker/screentinker/security/advisories/new)

GitHub's private advisory flow keeps the report off public issues, lets us
draft a fix collaboratively, and produces a CVE if appropriate. Use this
unless you have a reason not to.

**Fallback — email:**

`support@bytetinker.net` (the maintainer's consultancy inbox; the domain
intentionally differs from `screentinker.com` — it's the actively-monitored
business address rather than a project-domain alias that might not have
working mail delivery).

Please include:
- A description of the issue and its impact
- Steps to reproduce (the more concrete, the better)
- The commit SHA or release tag you observed it on
- Any proof-of-concept code or payload, if you have one

## Response timeline

I aim to acknowledge reports within **3–5 business days** and update with a
triage assessment within **10 business days**. If you haven't heard back
in that window, please feel free to nudge — life happens, and reports
occasionally slip past.

Fix timelines depend on severity, complexity, and whether the issue is on
the hosted instance (screentinker.com) or affects self-hosted deployments
too. Critical issues affecting the hosted instance generally get same-week
turnaround.

## In scope

Reports about the following are welcome and treated as security issues:

- **Authentication / session bypass** (e.g. JWT forgery, login bypass,
  privilege escalation)
- **Multi-tenancy boundary violations** (one workspace's data leaking into
  another, organization-level isolation breaks)
- **XSS in widget rendering or admin UI** (e.g. unsandboxed widget content,
  unescaped user input in dashboard surfaces)
- **CSRF** on state-changing endpoints
- **SQL injection** (deviations from parameterized queries are reportable)
- **Server-side request forgery** (SSRF) via widget URLs, content uploads,
  webhook handlers, or similar
- **Insecure direct object reference** (accessing a resource by ID without
  the proper tenancy gate)

## Out of scope

The following are acknowledged but not treated as in-scope security
issues for this project:

- **Denial of service via excessive resource usage** (uploading large
  files, opening many sockets, etc.) — operational concerns, not security
  vulnerabilities. Rate limits exist where it matters most.
- **Social engineering** of the maintainer or other users
- **Misconfigurations of self-hosted instances** (e.g. exposing the server
  to the internet without TLS, weak JWT secrets, default passwords). The
  README documents recommended configuration; deviations are the operator's
  responsibility.
- **Vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies** (Express, better-sqlite3,
  socket.io, etc.) — please report those upstream. If a dependency CVE
  affects ScreenTinker in a non-obvious way, that's worth flagging here too.
- **Reports generated by automated scanners** with no manual triage or
  proof-of-concept (e.g. "your /robots.txt is missing" — not what this
  project worries about)

## Coordinated disclosure

Please **wait until a fix has shipped to the hosted instance and
origin/main before public disclosure**. I'll keep you in the loop on
timing and confirm when it's safe to publish. For most issues that
window is a few weeks at most; if it stretches longer, that's a signal
something is more complex than expected and we'll coordinate.

If you find a critical issue that's being actively exploited (or you
believe might be), please say so in the report — I'll prioritize
accordingly.

## Acknowledgments

If you'd like to be credited for a report, I'm happy to acknowledge you
by name in release notes and (when applicable) in the GitHub advisory
itself. Let me know in your report whether you'd like credit and how
you'd like to be named. Anonymous reports are also welcome — no credit
is required.

## Uploaded content access model

Uploaded content (images, videos) served under /uploads/content is
**public by unguessable URL**, not access-controlled:

- Filenames are UUIDv4 (122 bits of randomness), so URLs are not enumerable
  or guessable.
- There is no per-request authentication on content bytes, and CORS is open
  (Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *) because the web player's canvas-based
  screenshot capture requires cross-origin access.
- Anyone who obtains a content URL can read that file, cross-tenant, with no
  expiry (immutable 30-day cache) and no revocation short of deleting the file.

This is an intentional design choice for digital signage, where content is
destined for public display. It is **security-through-unguessability, not
access control.**

**Do not upload content you require to remain confidential** - including
material that is destined for a screen but not yet public (e.g. a scheduled
promotion before its reveal, or an internal board containing names or other
sensitive details). Such content is world-readable from the moment of upload.
If pre-launch or tenant-private confidentiality is a requirement for your
deployment, open an issue - signed/expiring URLs are tracked but not yet
implemented.
