Software Development Life Cycle Sample Clauses

Software Development Life Cycle. A Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) methodology, including release management procedures, must be documented, reviewed, approved, and version controlled, with management oversight, on a periodic basis. These must include activities that ▇▇▇▇▇▇ development of secure software, for example: 1. Validation of security requirements must follow a documented methodology. 2. SDLC methodology must include requirements for documentation and be managed by appropriate access controls. Developer access to production environments must be restricted by policy and in implementation. 3. Code certification, including security review of code developed by third parties (e.g., open source, contracted developers), must be performed. Third-party and open source code used in applications must be appropriately licensed, inventoried, supported, patches applied timely, tested prior to use in production, and evaluated for security defects on an on-going basis, with any identified gaps remediated in a timely manner.

Software Development Life Cycle. Do systems watch for undesirable or unexpected activity and log these events? Do logged events trigger alerts? What happens then? We are using Papertrail to collect all logs and OSSEC to watch the potential security threats. OSSEC watches everything and actively monitors all aspects of the Unix system activity with file integrity monitoring, log monitoring, rootcheck and process monitoring. We furthermore use push notifications sent through New Relic and Datadog to inform the entire team of any server issues to ensure fast reaction time Are current versions of software being deployed? Will upgrades and patches be promptly applied? We are using Ubuntu operation system with an apt-get command which controls the integrity of installed packages and performs all operations over SSL. Our code repositories are located at GitHub (private access only) and all source code is obtained using ssh protocol. All patches and upgrades are furthermore performed using automated deployment scripts. Is data secured in transit over the Internet? What are the safeguards? All data is transferred using TLS. Labster API will refuse to send/receive data for non-validating certificates. All latest security Is the software under a written Software Development Life Cycle? We are using external libraries in the core foundation of our applications. The main application framework used called Django, it pays attention to security (▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/en/1.9/t opics/security/), follows all current modern trends, and issues prompt bug fix releases on all found security problems (▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/en/1.8/internals/release-process/). We are using one of the currently supported Django versions in our software. The whole application relies on Django security model, all data interaction is protected by internal Django framework mechanics to protect from typical types of security threats. What are your safeguards and procedures to detect/determine whether there has been any compromise of the relevant assets? New Relic and DataDog monitoring can show unusual network/CPU activities usually associated with compromises; * We are using Papertrail to collect all logs and OSSEC to watch the potential security threats. OSSEC watches everything and actively monitors all aspects of the Unix system activity with file integrity monitoring, log monitoring, rootcheck and process monitoring. * We furthermore use push notifications sent through New Relic and Datadog to inform the entire te...

Software Development Life Cycle. Software development and change management at NovaSight are performed in a manner to help ensure applications are properly designed, tested, approved and aligned to NovaSight’s Customers’ business objectives. Changes are discussed, evaluated and approved by relevant managers from product, development and operations. Personnel responsibilities for the design, acquisition, implementation, configuration, modification, and management of systems are assigned. In addition, changes performed to the application are communicated to NovaSight’s Customers through release notes published on the NovaSight customer success website. Company has ensured all documents, including without limitations, agreements, privacy policies online terms, etc. are compliant with the Data Protection Regulations, including by implementing Data Processing Agreement and where needed Standard Contractual Clauses (either pursuant to the GDPR and adopted by the European Commission Decision 2021/914 of 4 June 2021 which is attached herein by linked reference: ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇-▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇/legal content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021D0914&from=EN or pursuant to the standard data protection clauses adopted pursuant to or permitted under Article 46 of the UK GDPR for transferring Personal Data outside of the EEA or UK). Measures and assurances regarding U.S. government surveillance (“Additional Safeguards”) have been implemented due to the EU Court of Justice Case C-311/18, Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ decision (“Schrems II”), these measures include the following: • Encryption both in transit and at rest; • As of the date of this DPA, Sentry has not received any national security orders of the type described in Paragraphs 150-202 of the Schrems II decision. • No court has found NovaSight to be the type of entity eligible to receive process issued under FISA Section 702: (i) an “electronic communication service provider” within the meaning of 50 U.S.C § 1881(b)(4) or (ii) a member of any of the categories of entities described within that definition. • NovaSight shall not comply with any request under FISA for bulk surveillance, i.e., a surveillance demand whereby a targeted account identifier is not identified via a specific “targeted selector” (an identifier that is unique to the targeted endpoint of communications subject to the surveillance). • NovaSight shall use all available legal mechanisms to challenge any demands for data access through national...

Software Development Life Cycle. ‌ The development of ensemble-based systems goes beyond addressing the classical phases of the soft- ▇▇▇▇ development life cycle like requirements elicitation, implementation and deployment. Engineer- ing autonomic systems has also to tackle aspects such as self-* properties like self-awareness and self-adaptation. Such properties have to be considered from the beginning of the development pro- cess, i.e. during elicitation of the requirements. We need to capture how the system should be adapted and how the system or environment should be observed in order to make adaptation possible. Models are usually built on top of the elicited requirements, mainly in following an iterative pro- cess, in which also validation and verification in early phases of the development are highly recom- mended, in order to mitigate the impact of design errors. A relevant issue is then the use of modeling and implementation techniques for adaptive and awareness features. Our aim is to focus on these distinguishing characteristics of autonomic systems along the whole development cycle. We propose a “double-wheel” life cycle for autonomic systems to sketch the main aspects of the engineering process as shown in Figure 1. The “first wheel” represents the design or offline phases and the second one represents the runtime or online phases. Both wheels are connected by the transitions deployment and feedback. The offline phases comprise requirements engineering, modeling and programming and verifica- tion and validation. We emphasize the relevance of mathematical approaches to validate and verify the properties of the autonomic system and enable the prediction of the behaviour of such complex systems. This closes the cycle providing feedback for checking the requirements identified so far or improving the model or code. The online phases comprise monitoring, awareness and self-adaptation. They consist of observing the system and the environment, reasoning on such observations and using the results of the analysis for adapting the system and providing feedback for offline activities. Transitions between online and offline activities can be performed as often as needed throughout the system’s evolution, and data acquired during monitoring at runtime are fed back to the design cycle to provide information to be used for system redesign, verification and redeployment. The process defined by this life cycle can be refined providing details on the involved stakeholders, the actions they per...

Software Development Life Cycle. MCAD Personnel shall work according to the software development life cycle mutually agreed to between USI and IIPL. USI is pursuing ISO Certification while IIPL is working on a quality improvement program based on the Capability Maturity Model ("CMM"). Intergraph shall cause IIPL to meet the quality requirements of USI through an approach which is mutually agreed to between the two parties (either by seeking certification of the IIPL MCAD quality improvement program or by implementing the contract review clause of the ISO).