Structural reach
Direct and transitive consumers backed by repository, package, or build evidence.
WINDANVIL / RESEARCH PLAN 001
Measure the reach.
Prove the risk.
One shared library can sit beneath many accessibility requirements. This proposed study for Alpha-Omega investigates that security blast radius—without mistaking repository reach for a vulnerability or a finding for a repair.
PROPOSED FOR ALPHA-OMEGA · EXPLORATORY · 13 WEEKS FROM AGREED KICKOFF · NOT APPROVED
01 / THE SECURITY QUESTION
How far can a
failure propagate?
Accessibility-critical software often depends on ordinary open-source supply chains. The question is which shared components are present in downstream products, which affected paths are reachable, and which security and accessibility requirements would be compromised if those paths fail.
Version exposure
Which downstream releases actually contain a potentially affected component version.
Functional reachability
Whether the relevant input or privilege boundary reaches the code or interface in question.
Deployment evidence
Where real-world use is documented; unknown prevalence stays explicitly unknown.
Accessibility consequence
Requirements and workflows at risk: integrity, privacy, availability, and equivalent fallback access.
Dependency does not mean exploitability. We distinguish candidate relationships, affected versions, reachable paths, verified findings, and mitigated risks. Evidence confidence is reported separately from priority.
02 / THE OUTPUTS
Evidence before
intervention.
Each deliverable should help someone make a better technical decision. Completing an inventory is not the same as removing a vulnerability.
Approximately 200 projects
Build a reproducible inventory containing canonical repositories, licenses, accessibility functions, maintenance and dependency evidence, source provenance, and material unknowns. Explain any shortfall rather than padding the count.
Blast-radius assessment
Assess actual downstream dependency reach, version exposure, interface reachability, deployment evidence, and accessibility consequences. Record confidence separately from priority and test ranking sensitivity.
24 security action briefs
For each selected component, connect its technical role to an essential user function. Describe evidence, a bounded potential intervention, prerequisites, and a measurable completion test. Label conclusions that remain unvalidated.
Up to three case studies
Where feasible and expressly authorized, investigate uncertainties through dependency tracing, release-process review, or isolated testing of public artifacts. Report negative results and limitations as carefully as positive findings.
03 / DISCOVERY & VALIDATION
Use the map.
Verify the terrain.
Discovery should start with existing public infrastructure, not another invented directory. Ecosyste.ms and its accessibility-tagged awesome lists provide leads; repository and package metadata help investigate dependencies. A curated list is not a security audit or proof that a project is critical.
01 / Discover and normalize
Collect public candidate projects from community-curated lists and other sources. Resolve canonical repositories, mirrors, packages and versions. Exclude courses and resource directories unless they are relevant software infrastructure. Preserve links, collection dates, licenses and attribution.
02 / Validate actual use
Trace package relationships and documented downstream consumers, distinguishing structural dependencies from deployed, functionally reachable code. Record the evidence and mark what remains unknown; dependency counts alone do not demonstrate exploitability.
03 / Evaluate human consequences
Assess captioning, real-time text, Deaf/ASL communications, braille, screen readers and accessible emergency information. Consider lost access, integrity, privacy and availability alongside conventional technical exposure and maintenance capacity.
04 / Direct the next investment
Separate priority from evidence confidence. Compare interventions by bounded scope, expected user benefit, prerequisite access and measurable completion evidence. Produce 24 research briefs; do not imply 24 completed repairs or guaranteed vulnerabilities.
Ecosyste.ms and its public API documentation are third-party research inputs, not an agreed partnership, endorsement or special-access arrangement. Respect data licenses, attribution and rate limits. Substantive maintainer engagement will require an agreed, appropriately supported project scope; no speculative unpaid technical reviews are expected.
04 / THE METHOD
A beginning. A method.
An accountable result.
Our approach is designed to inform Alpha-Omega’s future open-source security decisions even if technical case studies are infeasible. Source provenance, uncertainty, and reproducibility are essential. Research artifacts are proposed for publication under alpha-omega-security, pending organizational agreement and repository permissions.
| Period | Research work | Evidence of completion |
|---|---|---|
| Weeks 1–3 | Establish selection criteria, inventory fields, scoring anchors, and evidence standards. Calibrate on varied examples. | Initial methodology and research baseline. |
| Weeks 4–7 | Complete public-source inventory and identify priority candidates. Seek scoped, appropriately arranged maintainer participation. | Traceable records, documented corrections, and uncertainty. |
| Weeks 8–11 | Complete comparative assessments and 24 briefs. Undertake limited technical case studies only where authorized and feasible. | Completed briefs, sensitivity assessment, and case evidence as applicable. |
| Weeks 12–13 | Finalize accessible reports and structured data, present conclusions, and document bounded follow-on technical options. | Accessible public research package and next-step roadmap. |
05 / THE BOUNDARIES
Discipline is
the work.
Permission first
No intrusive testing of systems without authorization. Do not use production-user communications or publish sensitive technical findings ahead of appropriate disclosure.
Consequences matter
Consider access, privacy, reliable communication, and safety. Avoid assuming that a finding in one disability domain describes every other community.
Unknown is not vulnerable
A dependency relationship alone does not prove exploitation. Keep observed defects, plausible hypotheses, and verified security weaknesses distinct.
Independent research
WindAnvil operates separately from government duties and nonpublic information. The earlier WindAnvil assurance platform is not represented as part of the new initiative.